HARJOGINDER SINGH Vs. SATWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution vide impugned order dated 02.08.2016. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for restoration of the complaint which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2016. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has shown bona fide grounds before the trial Court for nonappearance of the applicant.

(2.) A perusal of the orders shows that the complaint remained pending for consideration for a long time for procuring the presence of the respondent-accused and even bailable warrants were issued against him and he appeared on 07.03.2015 in pursuance to the execution of non-bailable warrants and was later on granted bail. Subsequently, on few occasions, accused-Satwant Singh was granted exemption from personal appearance and on that account also, the case was adjourned.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant further submits that thereafter, on request of the respondent-accused, the case was adjourned as it was stated before the trial Court that there is a possibility of compromise between the parties and in that process, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.08.2016. He further submitted that the applicant moved an application for restoration of the complaint on the ground of noting a wrong date. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in fact one more complaint filed by the complainant under Section 420 and 406 IPC was pending at Bathinda and on an application moved by the respondent accused, the present complaint was transferred from Talwandi Sabo to Bathinda, by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 11.02016. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the cause list of the trial Court to show that on 12.04.2016 both the cases were adjourned to 10.08.2016. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that on 10.08.2016 when he appeared before the trial Court, he found that only one case is listed i.e the complaint filed by the respondent-accused and on an enquiry, he came to know that the present complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.08.2016 and the applicant was under a bona fide impression that both the cases are adjourned for 10.08.2016. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application for restoration of the complaint, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 29.09.2016 holding that there is no such provision in Cr.P.C. for restoration of the complaint.