PREM CHAND Vs. SHEOJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order, dated December 17, 1985, passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Uniyara; whereby he has taken cognizance for offence under Section 420 IPC against the accused -petitioner. This petition is pending in this court since January, 1986. It was admitted on January 20, 1986. Thereafter it shows that extra copies were not filed for over a month till a pre -emptory order was passed. Thereafter also it went on leasurely and the complainant was served after practically two years. The case was registered on Match 3, 1989. After more than 3 years of admission despite the fact that it was a miscellaneous application in the pending trial and the trial is stalled as the record of the trial court is before this court. None appeared for the accused petitioner on March 3, 1989. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent were heard and record was perused but the order was not dictated as the court was of the opinion that learned Counsel for accused petitioner may appear on the date of dictation of the order and hence it was directed to be placed for dictation of the order on March 7, 1989. Since on 4th, 5th and 6th the court was not sitting none appeared on March 7, 1989 and the case was passed over to March 8, 1989 and then to March 9, 1989 but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, though the case is being regularly shown in the daily cause list. Since it is a miscellaneous petition only against taking the cognizance and there are various stages yet to follow in my opinion it is not essential to appoint a defence counsel on cost of the State, in a case like the one. In the absence of counsel for the accused, I also do not think it essential to send notice to the accused -petitioner as he will have an opportunity to argue the whole case before the trial court at the stage of framing charge.

(2.) I have gone through the complaint as well as the statements of Sheojilal, Jai Narain and Ram Narain recorded during enquiry. I would not like to comment on their statements, since it is likely to prejudice the case of either parties but suffice it to say that it is not a case where the complaint should have been dismissed or can be dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Since there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused I am not inclined to quash the proceedings holding at this stage that the case is of civil nature. The accused was summoned initially by warrant of arrest vide order, dated December 17, 198S, but that was directed to be converted into a bailable warrant by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk vide his order, dated January 7, 1986 which was served on him but he did not appear despite the service of warrant, therefore the trial court again issued warrant of arrest vide order, dated February 28, 1986 and it appears from the record at all that the accused has not appeared till now before that court. The trial court shall, on receipt of this record, issue fresh bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 1000/ - against the accused.