Om Prakash Jain vs Pushpa Jain
2016 Latest Caselaw 1356 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4019/2014 & Crl.M.A. 13783/2014
                                  Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016

    OM PRAKASH JAIN                                       ..... Petitioner
                 Through                Mr.J.P. Verma, Adv. with Mr.R.K.
                                        Bharan, Adv.

                         versus

    PUSHPA JAIN                                          ..... Respondent
                         Through        Mr.Deepak Tyagi, Adv. with Mr.K.K.
                                        Gautam, Adv. & Mr.Rishab Jain,
                                        Adv.

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

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has

been filed by the petitioner for setting aside and quashing the order

dated 07.02.2014, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the request of the petitioner to summon

witnesses, namely, Sumat Kumar Jain and Dhirender Kumar Saxena

was declined.

2. Factual matrix, emerges from the petition, is that the petitioner

had filed a criminal complaint which is pending before the Trial

Court. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner examined

witnesses in support of his case. The petitioner sought to examine

two more witnesses, namely, Sumat Kumar Jain and Dhirendra

Kumar Jain which was allowed by the Court on 05.04.2004. On

26.05.2009, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to examine

three witnesses. On 25.03.2011, the complainant moved an

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine Santosh Kumar Jain

as witness in lieu of two additional witnesses allowed on 05.04.2004.

The said application was dismissed on 15.12.2012. On 23.07.2013,

the complainant moved another application for summoning the

witnesses and the request to summon the witnesses was declined vide

impugned order dated 07.02.2014.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

4. Perusal of record shows that the criminal complaint was filed

by the petitioner/complainant in the year 1999 against the respondent

under Sections 500/120-B/192/34 IPC. In the list of witnesses, the

complainant cited four witnesses including the complainant. The

petitioner requested the Court below to allow him to examine two

more witnesses, namely, Sumat Kumar Jain and Dhirendra Kumar

Saxena. The said request of the petitioner was allowed on

05.04.2004. On 26.05.2009, the Court below granted liberty to the

petitioner to examine three more witnesses. On 11.01.2011, the

complainant was granted liberty to summon the witnesses in post-

charge evidence for which permission was granted vide order dated

05.04.2004.

5. It is further apparent from the record that on 25.03.2011, an

application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner to

examine the witness Santosh Kumar Jain in lieu of two additional

witnesses who were allowed to be examined on 05.04.2004 and

11.01.2011. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on

15.12.2012. After the dismissal of the said application, the petitioner

again moved an application for summoning the witnesses and by

passing the impugned order dated 07.02.2014, the request of the

petitioner to summon Sumar Kumar Jain and Dhirendra Kumar

Saxena was declined.

6. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he kept on delaying his

own complaint on one pretext or the other. The list of witnesses

annexed with the complaint shows that initially the complainant

sought to examine only four witnesses including himself. But later

on, he requested to examine two more witnesses, namely, Sumat

Kumar Jain and Dhirendra Kumar Saxena as additional witnesses.

The petitioner was allowed to examine the said witnesses on

05.04.2004 and then on 11.01.2011. But despite having the

permission to examine the said two additional witnesses, the

complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to

examine witness Santosh Kumar Jain in lieu of those two witnesses.

The said application was dismissed and then again the petitioner

wanted to examine witnesses Sumat Kumar Jain and Dhirendra

Kumar Saxena. Due to such an act and conduct of the petitioner, the

respondent is also facing the prolonged litigation and has faced the

harassment for such a long time. Such a conduct on the part of the

petitioner cannot be allowed to be continued. It is pertinent to

mention that the complainant closed his evidence before the Trial

Court on 26.06.2015 and the case was fixed for statement of the

accused.

7. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality or

infirmity in the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate. Neither any abuse to the process of law nor

any failure of justice has been demonstrated. This Court is of the

considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the present

case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

9. Application Crl.M.A. 13783/2014 is also disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2016 dd