Gurinder Singh Bedi vs Dinesh Mills Ltd.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2125 Del

$~19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%              Judgment delivered on:28th March, 2012

+      CRL.M.C. 3249/2011

GURINDER SINGH BEDI                       ..... Petitioner
                 Through : Mr.Gurvinder Singh, Adv.

                       Versus

DINESH MILLS LTD.                                    ..... Respondent
                            Through : Mr.Sunil Ojha, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant petition petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings pending before the Trial Court at District Courts, Saket in the Complaint Case No.1486/1 titled Dinesh Mills Ltd. V. Gurinder Singh Bedi.

2. Vide order dated 27.09.2011 the Registry of this Court was directed to seek status report from the ld. Trial court judge. However, the report was not received by 16.12.2011, on which date the matter was listed. Vide order dated 16.12.2011, the Registry was again directed to seek the status report from ld. Trial Court Judge.

3. Now, the status report has been received and is placed on file.

4. In the aforesaid status report it is stated that the ld. MM took over the charge of that Court w.e.f. 18.02.2011 and since then the file has come up for hearing only on one occasion, i.e., on 01.06.2011 and on that date no

effective work could be done as both the parties had sought adjournment.

5. On 10.02.2012 the matter again came up for hearing and the exemption application filed by the complainant was allowed by the ld. Link MM and now the matter has been listed for pre-charge evidence on 19.04.2012.

6. It is further stated in the status report that after dismissal of the application u/s 245 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner/accused on 22.11.2004, the matter was listed for pre-charge evidence, however, no evidence could be led by the complainant/respondent for the last more than 7 years.

7. It is also mentioned in the said status report that the matter has been listed for hearing on 17 occasions. Since then the complainant/respondent remained absent almost at 12 times.

8. The glaring fact of this matter is that the exemption applications of the complainant being allowed, whenever moved. As submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is facing trial for the last 11 years and the respondents are least bothered to pursue the matter and most of the times they sought exemption, and same were allowed. It seems that the respondents are not interested to led any evidence even before pre-charge stage. Therefore, they only want to harass the petitioner.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the matter is listed on 19.04.2012 before the trial court, the respondent is directed to bring all the evidences on that very date, failing which the trial court would be at liberty to dismiss the complaint and drop the proceedings against the petitioner.

10. The CRL.M.C. 3249/2011 is disposed of in the above terms.

11. Since the main petition is disposed of Crl. M.A. No.11546/2011 (Stay) become infructuous and disposed of as such.

SURESH KAIT, J

MARCH 28, 2012 RS/jg