RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dtd. 29/4/2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the revisional court) in a criminal revision, titled, "Rajinder Kumar vs. State and another" with a further prayer for quashing of order dtd. 15/1/2016 passed by the learned District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which the respondent No. 2 has been acquitted for commission of offences under Sec. 427, 448 and 379 RPC.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner was the complainant in FIR bearing No. 163/2013 that was registered with Police Station, Udhampur for commission of offence under Sec. 427, 448 and 379 RPC and after the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet for commission of offence under sec. 427, 448 and 380 RPC was filed and the same was pending before the trial court. It is stated that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent No:2 merely after recording the statement of one witness out of 14 cited witnesses in the chargesheet, in a slip shod manner and that too by illegally observing it to be a case of no evidence by virtue of order dtd. 15/1/2016. It is submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the learned trial court on 27/7/2015 for getting his statement recorded in the trial but due to strike observed by the clerical staff, his statement could not be recorded and thereafter he was not communicated the next date of hearing before the trial court by the prosecution as he was told that he would be summoned as and when his presence would be required in the matter. It is alleged that the prosecution was apparently hands in glove with the accused as it is not discernable as to when and to whom the summons were served by the prosecution agency and what steps were in fact taken to bring the trial to its logical conclusion and further that the learned trial court too has acted as a mute spectator on the lapses committed by the prosecution and has ultimately acquitted the respondent No. 2/accused. The order dtd. 15/1/2016 was impugned by the petitioner before the learned revisional court but the learned revisional court dismissed the said revision vide order dtd. 29/4/2017. The petitioner has impugned the order dtd. 15/1/2016 passed by the learned trial court as also order dtd. 29/4/2017 passed by the learned revisional court on the following grounds:

(3.) Mr. Maneesh Rampal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the prosecution was not performing its obligation to produce the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the learned trial court should have summoned the witnesses on its own so as to ensure that the trial was concluded in accordance with law. He further submitted that the learned revisional court too has fallen in error of law while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bansi Lal vs Abdul Rashid and another, 2006(3) JKJ 189.