Gurjant Singh and others vs Shri Ranjodh Singh

Ajit Singh Bains, J.—This petition u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by Gurjant Singh and his wife Munni Devi, for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mansa u/s 500, Indian Penal Code.

In the petition it is alleged that respondent Ranjodh Singh filed a criminal complaint u/s 500, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, on January 16, 1976 and in consequence of that the petitioners were summoned by the trial Court. The respondent examined all the witnesses cited, but he refused to close his case, upon which the trial Court passed an order, dated January 11, 1977, which is reproduced in the petition. In this order it is stated that although the complainant has exhausted his list of witnesses, but he does not want to close the evidence for charge till the Courts decides the pending objection exhibition of the documents marked ''B'' and ''C'' and consequently the trial Court adjourned the case to January 20, 1977 for the consideration of the objection. It is further alleged that after the aforesaid order was passed, the complainant did not attend the Court, and sent an application for exempting his attendance. At this the petitioners urged before the trial Court that since the complainant had not been appearing, the complaint be dismissed and they be acquitted, but the trial Court disallowed this prayer on February 23, 1977, without giving reasons as to why the exemption was granted to the complainant. It is against that order (copy Annexure A-1 with the petition) that the present petition has been filed.

A certified copy of the order of the trial Court, dated January 20, 1977, has also been produced in Court, which reads thus:�

Present Gurjant Singh accused with counsel, Complainant is exempted. Counsel for complainant is out of station. To come up on 2nd February, 1977 for consideration.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in the absence of the complainant, the complaint should have been dismissed u/s 256(1) of the Code, which is in the following terms:�

256(1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding any thing hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day.

Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution, or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.

Plain reading of this section shows that if the complainant does not appear on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused or any day subsequent there to which the hearing is adjourned the Magistrate shall acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. It is further provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader, or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, be may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. In the present case, the complainant remained absent on some of the dates fixed before the trial Court, and it was then that the petitioners urged the trial Magistrate to take action u/s 256 (1) of the Code, but instead of proceeding under that provision and acquitting the accused, the Magistrate exempted the attendance of the complainant without assigning any reasons therefore, not only the complainant, but his counsel also was not present in Court, and it is not shown how the Magistrate adjourned the case without recording any reasons.

The earlier order, dated January 11, 1977 of the trial Magistrate in not closing the case of the complainant after he had examined all the witnesses cited in the complaint also does not seem to be in accordance with law. The trial Magistrate has to follow the procedure for trial of complaint cases as laid down in the Code to avoid unnecessary delay in the trial of such cases. He should have closed the evidence of the complainant when he had exhausted the list of witnesses cited by him and not allowed the case to hang on, on the ground of some objection raised by the complainant. Hence his order dated January 11, 1977 adjourning the case to January 20th 1977 for the consideration of the complainant''s objection was not jusitfied in the circumstances of this case.

As already observed, when the complainant and his counsel were not present in Court on 20th January 1977, the trial Magistrate should have acted in accordance with the provisions of section 256 (1) of the Code, and he had, in that situation, no option but to acquit the petitioners. In not doing so, the trial Magistrate has not acted legally.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners pending before the trial Magistrate are quashed.