JAININDER JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 22-7-1996, FIR No. 597 was lodged by Rajinder Parsad Singla at Police Station, City Ballabhgarh under Sections 365/342, IPC against Jaininder Jain and others, wherein it was stated that Vivek Garg had been abducted by the accused and secretly and forcibly kept confined by them in their factory premises at Ballabhgarh. After the completion of the investigation, a cancellation report was filed by the police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Faridabad. On 24-4-2003. Rajinder Parsad Singla filed a protest petition. The said Court summoned the accused for having committed offences under Sections 342/323/383/ 506, IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The summoning order was challenged ,by Jaininder Jain and Ashok Kumar Sethi by filing a revision, which was, however, dismissed by the Court of Sessions on 28-3-2005. Thereafter, when the proceedings were pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajinder Parsad Singla died on 23-6-2005. As the proceedings pertained to the illegal confinement of Vivek Garg, present respondent No, 2, he filed an application for permitting him to continue the criminal proceedings against the accused persons in place of Rajinder Parsad Singla. This application was allowed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad on 11-5-2006. The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rajinder Parsad Singla, who had lodged FIR No. 597 dated 22-7-1996 against the accused had since expired on 23-6-2005 and, therefore, the application filed by Vivek Garg for continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused persons was not maintainable in the eyes of law. The Investigating Agency had already investigated the case and recommended for its cancellation. Necessary application in that behalf was filed in the Court. The protest petition filed by Rajinder Parsad Singla was then treated as a complaint and the accused summoned to face the trial. There was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for substitution of the complainant and therefore, the application of Vivek Garg could not be entertained. Reference was also made to the provisions of Sections 249 and 256 of the Code to contend that once the complainant is not before the Court, the accused have to be discharged from the case. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate on 11-5-2006, while allowing the application of Vivek Garg, be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that though Rajinder Parsad Singla had lodged the FIR, but it was Vivek Garg, who was the actual complainant, being the victim. He was abducted by the accused and thereafter confined. Since Rajinder Parsad Singla had passed away, Vivek Garg could request the Court to allow him to continue the criminal proceedings as a complainant in the interest of justice.