Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1125 (HP)

Inderjeet Parmar v. Ramesh Kumar

2019-08-08

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is maintained by the petitioner-complainant for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 22.5.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, in Case No.276-I of 2014, whereby evidence of the petitioner-complainant was closed. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the learned Court below called the status report from the concerned police authorities and proceeded with the complaint as private complaint and so, the petitioner-complainant lead the preliminary evidence, thereafter, the learned Court below issued notice to the respondents-accused persons. As per the petitioner, he has to examine his witnesses and has availed four opportunities for leading the pre charge evidence, but on 22.5.2019, the learned Court below closed the evidence of the complainant. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 22.5.2019, passed by the learned Court below, the petitioner complainant maintained the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-complainant has argued that the learned Court below should have granted one more opportunity to lead evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2, 5 and 6 has submitted that the petitioner complainant is harassing the respondents since 2014 and some of them has to come from far away places to appear, on a date to be fixed by the learned Court below, the complainant intentionally not to appear himself as a witness and so, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference and prays for dismissal of the present petition. 5. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 6. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the complaint was filed by the complainant before the learned Court below, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for forwarding the complainant to the police authority of Police Station, Amb, District Una, to register and investigate the case, under Sections 323, 341, 392, 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, who are respondents herein. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the case is pending adjudication since 2014 and is at the stage of pre-charge evidence. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the case is pending adjudication since 2014 and is at the stage of pre-charge evidence. The petitioner-complainant has not chosen to appear as a witness or to bring other witnesses, as per the requirement of law despite having granted four opportunities. As the petitioner complainant is not bothering to appear before the learned Court below despite numerous opportunities, which depicts that he is not interested in the case and is only wants to delay the proceedings and harassing the respondents. So, in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.5.2019, passed by the learned Court below is just and reasoned and needs no interference. 7. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition sans merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 30th August, 2019. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.