State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Kulvinder Singh
2013 Latest Caselaw 2752 Del

$-13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      DECIDED ON : 3rd JULY, 2013

+                         CRL.L.P. 240/2013

       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                              ..... Petitioner
                          Through :   Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

                          versus

       KULVINDER SINGH                                    ..... Respondent

                    Through :         None.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. State has preferred Criminal Leave Petition under Section

378 (4) Cr.P.C. to file appeal against judgment / order dated 08.07.2011 of

learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which the complaint case filed under

Section 22A of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was dismissed for non-

prosecution. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have

examined the record. Trial Court record reveals that complaint case under

Section 22A of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was filed by complainant/

Inspector- Joginder Singh against the respondent on 18.12.2009. Vide

order dated 22.12.2009, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned

the respondent for 09.03.2010. On 09.03.2010, none appeared on behalf of

the complainant before the Court. Court notice was ordered to be issued to

the concerned Inspector for 07.06.2010. On 07.06.2010, again none

appeared on behalf of the complainant and the matter was adjourned for

27.08.2010. On that day, there was no appearance on behalf of the

complainant and the matter was relisted for 15.01.2011. Again, there was

no appearance on behalf of the complainant and the case was adjourned

for 08.07.2011. When none appeared on 08.07.2011 also despite service

of Court notice, despite repeated calls, the complaint case was dismissed

for non prosecution/ default and the respondent was acquitted. I find no

illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. When none had appeared

on various dates before the Trial Court on behalf of the complainant, the

Court had no alternative but to dismiss the complaint case for non-

appearance and non prosecution. At no stage either the complainant or

anybody else on his behalf appeared before the Court to pursue the matter.

No application for exemption of the complaint was ever moved. It appears

that the complainant and the department did not bother to pursue the

complaint case for about two years. When serious view was taken by the

Trial Court in the impugned order and action was recommended, the

department came into motion and that imposing minor penalty of

'censure' upon the complainant.

2. Similar was the fate in other cases - Crl.L.P. 238/2013 'State

vs. Shyam', Crl.L.P. 241/2013 'State vs. Jaidev Prasad' & Crl.L.P.

242/2013 'State vs. Naveen'.

3. Since the complainant was not at all diligent in pursuing the

matter on repeated dates, I find no sufficient ground to grant leave to the

State to file appeal against the impugned order/ judgment. The leave

petition is dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the

copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JULY 03, 2013 tr