Rajbir Singh Sharma vs Vijay Kumar Bansal & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 888 Del

              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



                                Date of Decision: February 14, 2011

                                    + Crl. MC No. 458/2011
%                                                                               14.02.2011
        Rajbir Singh Sharma                                   ...Petitioner

        Versus

        Vijay Kumar Bansal & Ors.                             ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. M.N. Kural and Ms. Pushpa Sharma for petitioner.

None for respondents.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORAL

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated

6th October 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby revision petition

filed by the petitioner against the order of learned MM dated 26th June, 2010 was

dismissed.

2. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint under various sections against

respondents herein in the year 1997. During pendency of proceedings complainant Ram

Richhpal Sharma died and in his place his Lr, the present petitioner, was substituted.

The learned MM closed the pre-summoning evidence of the complainant on 16th

September 2009 i.e. after about 12 years of filing of the complaint. The petitioner

thereafter filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling the witnesses. This

application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 26th October 2010. Thereafter, the

Crl.MC 458/2011 Page 1 Of 2 complaint itself was dismissed vide order dated 29th July, 2010 as no evidence had come

on record to summon the respondents. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a

revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Court

observed that despite the complaint having been filed in 1997 from 5th May, 2000 till 16th

September 2010, no evidence was led by the complainant, under these circumstances,

the learned MM was justified in closing the evidence. Even after 16th September 2009,

the complainant kept on taking adjournments on one or the other ground and moved

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 16th May, 2010 for examining himself as a

witness. It is this application of the petitioner/ complainant which was dismissed. The

learned ASJ observed that there was no reason to allow the revision as the order of

learned MM did not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error.

3. I consider that the case in hand reflects the callous attitude of the petitioner/

complainant who filed a complaint just for the sake of filing the same. The complaint was

filed in 1997 and even the complainant was not examined for 13 years. The two courts

below were justified in closing the complainant's evidence. I find no reason to entertain

this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

February 14, 2011                                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl.MC 458/2011                                                          Page 2 Of 2