Ramswaroop Golecha vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.3.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3, Ajmer, whereby, the learned Magistrate has accepted the negative final report submitted by the Police and has dismissed the protest petition submitted by the Petitioner.

The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 420, 406 & 120B IPC before the trial court against the non-Petitioner No. 2. According to the Petitioner, on 13.03.1997 he had purchased a trolla from the non-Petitioner No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 8,44,000/- and paid a sum of Rs. 1,01,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,50,000/- through different cheques to him. The possession of the trolla was handed- over to the Petitioner and the trolla continued to be operated under the Petitioner. Meanwhile, the non-Petitioner No. 2, in order to defraud the Petitioner, engaged a driver, Sh. Kishan Singh, on the trolla operated by the Petitioner. The driver of the vehicle, in collusion with the non- Petitioner No. 2, took the trolla with him and handed over the same to the non-Petitioner No. 2. When the Petitioner came to know about the delivery, he lodged a FIR against the driver and the non-Petitioner No. 2. Later on, the trolla was recovered at the instance of the non-Petitioner No. 2. Since the trolla was in police custody, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 moved two different applications for taking the vehicle on superdgi on the ground of ownership of the same. But, the learned trial court, vide order dated 14.1.1998, ordered the delivery of the vehicle in favour of the non-Petitioner No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed a revision petition before the competent court. However, vide order dated 9.10.1998, the revision petition was allowed in part. In the meanwhile, the police submitted a negative final report in the matter. The Petitioner filed a protest petition against the said negative final report. However, due to non-appearance of the counsel of the complainant, vide order dated 6.3.2006, the learned trial court dismissed the protest petition in default. Hence, this misc. petition before this Court.

Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the protest petition should not have been dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

However, a bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that both the complainant and his counsel have been absent on many occasions. Therefore, the learned Judge had no other option, but to dismiss the protest petition. A court is not expected to wait endlessly for the complainant and for his counsel to appear and to substantiate the case. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in dismissing the protest petition and in accepting the negative final report.

Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.