SURESH Vs. REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have impugned the judgment dated 15th May, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby he upset the order, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, dismissing the complaint.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the complaint has been dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant, the same could not have been restored. According to the counsel, there is no provision in the Act for restoration of the same.

(3.) THE complaint was lodged by one Rekha against the petitioners under Sections 406, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. After recording the preliminary evidence, the petitioners were summoned to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/506 read with Section 34 IPC. They put in appearance and were released on bail. Thereafter, an application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. was moved by the accused for discharge. On 17th April, 2006, the complaint was, however, dismissed as the complainant was not present. The complainant thereafter, on 27th May, 2006 moved an application for restoration of the complaint on the ground that she could not put in appearance on 17th April, 2006 as she had sustained injuries and was confined to bed. The application was, however, dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that he could not restore the order dismissing the complaint. The said order was challenged by the complainant, respondent herein, on the ground that the case under Sections 498-A/506 IPC was triable as a warrant case and in the absence of the complainant, the same could not have dismissed for non- prosecution. Reliance was placed on judgments reported as Shangara Singh v. Joginder Singh, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 123 and Shiv Kumar v. Mohd. Saghir, 1997(1) RCR(Crl.) 709 (Delhi). The revisional Court allowed the revision petition and restored the complaint to its original number. He directed the parties to remain present before the Magistrate on 27th May, 2009 for further proceedings.