Smt Omwati vs Satish Kumar & Anr
2019 Latest Caselaw 5267 Del

$~20
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of decision: 30.10.2019

+      CRL.M.C. 1877/2017
       SMT OMWATI                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through:    Mr. Arun Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
                           versus
       SATISH KUMAR & ANR                               ..... Respondents
                    Through:           Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                           J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated

27.02.2017, whereby the learned Trial Court had dismissed the complaint

filed by the petitioner.

2. The present petition is filed on the ground that in the impugned order,

the learned Trial Court had observed that none appeared on behalf of the

complainant on two consecutive dates, whereas, as per the order sheets, on

23.04.2016, the petitioner/complainant was present in Court with her

counsel and the matter was adjourned to 18.10.2016. Further, on 18.10.2016,

the petitioner/ complainant had sought exemption on the ground that she was

unwell.

3. Fact remains that the complaint was filed by the petitioner in the year

2003. Till date, even the charge has not been framed, whereas, summons to

the respondent No. 1 was issued vide order dated 14.01.2005. This

establishes that the petitioner/ complainant is not serious to proceed with the

complaint.

4. It is not in dispute that on 18.10.2016, none appeared on behalf of the

complainant. This fact itself establishes that the petitioner wants the

complaint to linger on. Since the complaint pertains to the year 2003, the

respondents already suffered lot due to the lackadaisical approach of the

petitioner/ complainant and moreover, there is inordinate delay in

adjudicating the complaint. On this ground itself, the complaint deserves to

be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed accordingly.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE OCTOBER 30, 2019 PB