Ahsan Ali vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 6932 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                           Decided on: 22nd November , 2018

+                         CRL.L.P. 72/2018
      AHSAN ALI                                         ..... Petitioner
              Represented by:           Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Adv.

                          versus

      THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent
               Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for State.
                               Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2&3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.L.P. 72/2018

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10th November, 2017 whereby the complaint of petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution as complainant was absent, the petitioner prefers the present leave petition.

2. Considering that the petitioner had been pursuing the remedy of the complaint leave to appeal is granted.

3. Petition is disposed of.

CRL.A.________/2018 (Registry to number the appeal)

1. The appellant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court being CC No. 96/1/15 New Case No. 530558/16 titled as "Ahsan Ali Vs. Khalid Parvez & Ors.". The said complaint was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th February, 2017 challenging which order the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge which was allowed vide order dated 20 th May, 2017 and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to issue process against the respondent in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge the complaint was listed before the learned MM on 25th May, 2017.

2. A perusal of the order sheets of the learned Trial Court would reveal on 25th May, 2017 the complaint was posted for 31st May, 2017 when the complainant was present and the matter was referred to mediation which did not fructify and was received back on 25th July, 2017. On 8th August, 2017 the complainant was not present but learned counsel for the complainant was present. Again adjournment was sought by the complainant's proxy counsel on 11th August, 2017. Thereafter the complainant was present on 24th August, 2017 and the matter was renotified on 31 st August, 2017 when the learned Presiding Officer was on half day leave. On 4th September, 2017 the complainant though present in Court, learned counsel sought adjournment to examine the case file. On 16th September, 2017 and 23rd September, 2017 the complaint was adjourned on joint request. The complaint was then posted to 3rd November, 2017 on which date the appellant was partly examined in pre-charge evidence and the cross-examination was deferred to 7th November, 2017. On 7th November, 2017 the appellant was absent and the complaint was renotifed for 10th November, 2017 when the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and hence the appeal.

3. Considering the fact that the complainant had been pursuing the remedy except for three dates when he was not present, this Court deems it fit to restore the complaint to its original position subject to cost of ₹5,000/- to be paid to each of the accused. List the complaint before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th January, 2019 when the complainant and the respondent No.2 & 3 will be present in Court along with their learned counsels. Total cost of ₹10,000/- will be paid by the appellant to the respondent No.2 and 3 on that date of hearing.

4. Appeal is disposed of. Order dasti.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 22, 2018 'ga'