LICHHMANRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- The petitioners have preferred this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 7-3-1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh in Cr. Original Case No. 75/95 (State v. Lichhmanram) under Ss. 341, 342 and 323, IPC whereby the petitioners' application dated 11-4-97 for dropping the aforesaid proceedings was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that S.H.O. Sujangarh after necessary investigation in FIR No. 196/94 under Ss. 447, 341 and 323, IPC lodged by complainant Kanhaiya Lal submitted chargesheet against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh to stand trial for the offences mentioned above. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the above mentioned offences on 14-2-1995. The accusation of the offence was not read over to the petitioners till 11-4-1997 and petitioners filed an application to drop the proceedings against them in pursuance of the decision "Common cause" A Registered Society Through its Director v. Union of India 1996 Cr LR (SC) 430 : (1996 Cri LJ 2380). The learned Judicial Magistrate heard the arguments and passed the impugned order rejecting the application holding that the petitioners were absent on 25-8-95, 15-12-95 and 24-5-96. Thereafter, they attended the Court on three dates but the accusation could not be stated to them due to their absence in the Court on the aforesaid dates of hearing. The learned Judicial Magistrate took the view that the petitioners cannot take advantage of their own fault of absence in the Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the proceedings were pending for more than two years on the date of filing the application on 11-4-97 by the petitioners. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed grave error in not dropping the proceedings in view of the principles and guidelines laid down in "Common cause" A Registered Society Through its Director v. Union of India (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra). The petitioners were granted exemption of the attendance on their applications on the afore-mentioned three dates and it cannot be treated as lapse on their part because the proceedings could make progress by stating the accusation to the counsel for the petitioners. In this way, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings cannot be continued against the petitioners which are pending for more than one year without the commencement of the trial. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and supported the impugned order.