GHISI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are being prosecuted under sections 457 and 380 IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 Mahendra Kumar Nirbheek on 21. 2. 1983 with the allegations that they had illegally taken possession of the shop which was in dispute in civil litigation and had stolen certain articles therefrom. THE learned Judicial Magistrate, before whom the complaint was filed, recorded the statement of the complainant and, vide order dated 13. 2. 1983, summoned the petitioners. After the service was effected on them, they appeared on 16. 1. 1984 and the case was adjourned to 23. 2. 84 for recording pre-charge evidence. No evidence was produced on 23. 2. 1984 and the case was adjourned for 24 times between the said date and 18. 7. 1987 and, on the last above said date, the respondent No. 2 appeared in the court and his statement was partly recorded and, thereafter, the case was adjourned to 14. 9. 1987, on which date, again, the respondent No. 2 appeared, but time was sought on the ground that the copy of the FIR had not been produced. THEreafter, the case was adjourned to many dates of hearing and the remaining statement of PW-1- Mahendra Kumar could be recorded only on 30. 8. 1989 on which date no other witness was present and the case was adjourned to 12. 10. 1989 and, thereafter to many dates of hearing, but no evidence was produced and the statement of PW-2 Teekam Chand, who appeared on 8-1-1990, was recorded on that date. No other witness was present on that date also and, at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the case was adjourned to 9. 3. 1990. THE pre-charge evidence has so far not been completed and the learned trial court is giving opportunities after opportunities to the complainant-respondent No. 2 inspite of the objections made by the petitioners orally as well as in writing and even in spite of the fact that once the evidence was closed and the order closing the evidence was upheld in the revision petition by the learned Sessions Court and afterwards an application moved by the respondent No. 2 for giving more opportunity, was allowed.

(2.) THE case relates to the possession of a shop, which is stated to be in dispute in civil litigation, and it is unfortunate that the learned trial court has been giving opportunities after opportunities to the respondent No. 2 to produce the evidence, but the respondent No. 2 has not been producing even the pre-charge evidence. After going through the record and perusing the adjournments granted to the respondents No. 2, I have a feeling that the respondent No. 2 is not prosecuting the petitioners- applicants but is persecuting them and, unfortunately, the learned trial court has been omitting to take notice of this fact and had been adjourning the matter as a matter of course without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are being harassed by the respondent No. 2, who appears to be not interested in completing the matter but interested in dragging the matter so that the petitioners may appear in court time and again.