Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 275 (KAR)

Lakshman v. Banashankari

2020-01-30

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. In this criminal petition, the petitioner who was accused no.1 before the trial Court, has challenged the order of restoration of the complaint filed against him by the present respondent in the trial Court alleging the offences punishable under sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC). 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that the complainant filed a private complaint in P.C.No.8/2013 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Vijayapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as trial Court) against the present accused and five others for the offences punishable under sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 498A read with section 34 of IPC. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and other witnesses, the trial Court ordered for issuance of summons against accused nos.1 and 2 only by taking cognizance of the offences and the complaint was rejected against accused nos.3 to 6. Accused nos.1 and 2, though initially challenged the said order of issuance of summons before the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in C.R.P.No.251/2014 and C.R.P. No.252/2014 and could able to succeed in getting the order in their favour on 30.12.2015, resulting in the quashing of the entire complaint, however, the complainant approaching this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.200026/2016 was able to get an order in her favour on 03.06.2016 setting aside the order of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in C.R.P.No.251/2014 and C.R.P. No.252/2014 dated 30.12.2015. Consequently, complaint was restored on the file of the trial Court. However, accused nos.1 and 2 had already appeared before the trial Court and were enlarged on bail. The matter was posted for evidence before charge. It appears that several adjournments of the proceeding took place, however, on 19.03.2018 observing that the complainant had remained absent and did not lead evidence before charge, the trial Court dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.106/2018 under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Cr.P.C.) against accused nos.1 and 2 in the Court of the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (hereinafter referred to as revisional Court). 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.106/2018 under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Cr.P.C.) against accused nos.1 and 2 in the Court of the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (hereinafter referred to as revisional Court). The said Court, after hearing both side, by its order dated 02.11.2019 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial Court dated 19.03.2018 and restored the complaint in its original stage. Both parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 23.12.2019 without anticipating any summons from the trial Court. Challenging the said order, accused no.1 alone has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the order of revisional Court dated 02.11.2019 and restoring the order of the trial Court dated 19.03.2018. 4. Respondent is being represented by her counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument, submitted that the trial Court has observed that the complainant had taken several adjournments in the matter, as such, it has rightly dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution on 19.03.2018. The revisional Court, without noticing that the trial Court had given sufficient opportunity to the complainant, was not justified in allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order of dismissal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, in his argument, submitted that the revisional Court has rightly observed that in a matter relating to administration of criminal justice, the matter cannot be dismissed for default, but the same is to be decided on merits. He also submitted that the revisional Court noticed that on several occasions accused also had taken several adjournments in the matter. As such, delay, if any, was not by the sole contribution from the complainants side. 6. From a perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet of the trial Court which is placed before this Court along with the memorandum of petition, it is seen that apart from the complainant, even the accused also had remained absent on several dates of hearing in the trial Court and caused adjournments in the matter. In the process, the accused nos.1 and 2 had also filed an application seeking permanent exemption from their appearance on the dates of hearing before the trial Court and the disposal of the said application had also taken considerable time. In the process, the accused nos.1 and 2 had also filed an application seeking permanent exemption from their appearance on the dates of hearing before the trial Court and the disposal of the said application had also taken considerable time. As such, the alleged delay in the trial Court cannot be solely fastened upon the complainant but there is some contribution from the accused side also. However, the trial Court, in its order dated 19.03.2018, without seeing the reason for the absence of the complainant, has simply proceeded to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution which has been rightly set aside by the revisional Court in Crl. RP. No.106/2018, after relying upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar and others in Criminal Appeal No.1150/2007 decided on 31.08.2007. In the said case, the Honble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the matters relating to administration of criminal justice cannot be dismissed for default and it must be decided on merits. In the instant case, admittedly, the matter relates to the administration of criminal justice and the alleged delay since being attributable to both side, the revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint for default and has restored the complaint in its original stage. 7. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. However, considering the age of the complaint in the trial Court, I am of the view that the trial Court, if requested for the speedy disposal of the matter, would help in serving the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed. Both side parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m. without anticipating summons or notice from the trial Court and to co-operate in speedy disposal of the matter by the trial Court without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The early disposal of the matter by the trial Court is highly appreciated. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the trial Court immediately.