( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31st January, 2005 which reads as under:-?balvinder Pal Singh. . . Complainant vs. Vinod Singh, Accused. . . Respondent order: 31. 1. 2005 present: Counsel for the complainant. Counsel for the accused with accused on bail. Today also the counsel for the complainant appears at 12. 15 and files an app. for exemption. In view of my previous order, the same stands dismissed. The complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution there being no pre-charge evidence on record. File be consigned to R. R. Sd/-MM Delhi ( 2 ) IT is submitted by the appellant that on 31. 1. 2005 the wife of the appellant was not well, therefore, he had to go to Amritsar and he instructed his counsel to move an application for exemption of his appearance. Accordingly, on 31. 1. 2005 the Counsel for the appellant moved an application for exemption of the appellant. However, the learned MM rejected the said application and dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the ground of non prosecution. The appeal is filed on the ground that appellant had been regularly appearing and sincerely prosecuting his complaint with due diligence. The non-appearance of the appellant on 31. 1. 2005 was not deliberate but the appellant had to go to amritsar to take care of his wife who was ill. The learned MM failed to appreciate that a substantial amount of money was involved and dismissal of complaint would affect the financial stability of the appellant. ( 3 ) THE appeal is opposed by the respondent on the ground that the appellant has not come with clean hands and he has been adopting tactics of harassing the respondent. He did not lead evidence before the Court despite opportunities and Court granted him last opportunity for leading evidence on 31. 1. 2005. Despite granting him last opportunity, the appellant did not produce the evidence. It is submitted that no specific illness of the wife has been stated. The medical certificate which has been filed before this Court also does not show that wife was suffering from any serious illness. The appellant has only produced an OPD prescription from a private medical practitioner and the date of medical prescription is 27. 1. 2005. Even if the appellant had to go to Amritsar before 27. 1. The medical certificate which has been filed before this Court also does not show that wife was suffering from any serious illness. The appellant has only produced an OPD prescription from a private medical practitioner and the date of medical prescription is 27. 1. 2005. Even if the appellant had to go to Amritsar before 27. 1. 2005 he could have come back to the court on 31. 1. 2005. Wife of the appellant was only given a hard bed rest and it was not necessary that appellant should have remained in Amritsar. The appellant was resident of delhi and Medical Certificate was of Amritsar. ( 4 ) A perusal of the record of the Trial Court would show that after issuance of notice of the accused under Section 251 Cr. P. C. , case was fixed for appellant's evidence on 16. 4. 2002. The complainant did not produce any evidence on 16. 4. 2002. He was not there on the first hearing and the case was fixed for appellant's evidence on 19. 8. 2002 for pre-charge evidence. On 29. 8. 2002 again adjournment was sought. Accused appeared on bail. The case was adjourned to 19. 12. 2002. On 19. 12. 2002, P. O. Was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 8. 4. 2003. On 8. 4. 2003 the matter was again fixed for complainant's evidence for 17. 4. 2003. On that date, none appeared for the complainant and a court notice was issued to the complainant for 10. 2. 2004 On 10. 2. 2004 when the complainant again did not produce any evidence and Counsel for complainant sought adjournment on the ground that he has been engaged recently on that day and the matter was adjourned to 9. 7. 2004 On 9. 7. 2004 complainant did not appear and a clerk of the Advocate appeared at 12. 30 PM and filed an application for exemption of the complainant. The learned MM granted the exemption and made it clear that last and final opportunity was being granted to the complainant for evidence on 31. 1. 2005. On 31. 1. 2005. No evidence was produced by the complainant and counsel again moved an application for exemption. ( 5 ) I consider that criminal justice system cannot be used a tool to harass any person. 1. 2005. On 31. 1. 2005. No evidence was produced by the complainant and counsel again moved an application for exemption. ( 5 ) I consider that criminal justice system cannot be used a tool to harass any person. While a person has a right to file a compliant before the metropolitan Magistrate to get a person summoned as accused, he cannot hold that person on ransom by not appearing and seeking adjournments time and again. The record shows that sufficient adjournments were given to the complainant for leading evidence. On all hearings when the complainant sought adjournment, the accused has been appearing in the court. The entire effort of the complainant seems to be to harass the respondent by calling him time and again in the court and not producing evidence. The complainant was to examine himself in the Court apart from other documentary evidence or other witnesses. No reason is given by the appellant as to why he did not examine himself or his witnesses. The excuse taken by the appellant that he had to go to Amritsar to see his wife is also patently false. The wife of the appellant had gone to Amritsar to her parents house. Her parents, brothers and sisters must have been capable of looking after her trivial ailment about which OPD prescription has been produced. ( 6 ) I find that the appellant has taken false ground for non-appearance before the Court of MM and for not examining the witnesses. I find no force in this appeal. ( 7 ) THE appeal is hereby dismissed.