GURJANT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI RANJODH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by Gurjant Singh and his wife Munni Devi, for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mansa under section 500, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN the petition it is alleged that respondent Ranjodh Singh filed a criminal complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, on January 16, 1976 and in consequence of that the petitioners were summoned by the trial Court. The respondent examined all the witnesses cited, but he refused to close his case, upon which the trial Court passed an order, dated January 11, 1977, which is reproduced in the petition. In this order it is stated that although the complainant has exhausted his list of witnesses, but he does not want to close the evidence for charge till the Courts decides the pending objection exhibition of the documents marked 'B' and 'C' and consequently the trial Court adjourned the case to January 20, 1977 for the consideration of the objection. It is further alleged that after the aforesaid order was passed, the complainant did not attend the Court, and sent an application for exempting his attendance. At this the petitioners urged before the trial Court that since the complainant had not been appearing, the complaint be dismissed and they be acquitted, but the trial Court disallowed this prayer on February 23, 1977, without giving reasons as to why the exemption was granted to the complainant. It is against that order (copy Annexure A -1 with the petition) that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) THE earlier order, dated January 11, 1977 of the trial Magistrate in not closing the case of the complainant after he had examined all the witnesses cited in the complaint also does not seem to be in accordance with law. The trial Magistrate has to follow the procedure for trial of complaint cases as laid down in the Code to avoid unnecessary delay in the trial of such cases. He should have closed the evidence of the complainant when he had exhausted the list of witnesses cited by him and not allowed the case to hang on, on the ground of some objection raised by the complainant. Hence his order dated January 11, 1977 adjourning the case to January 20th 1977 for the consideration of the complainant's objection was not justified in the circumstances of this case.