Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh vs Birmati And Ors on 20 July, 2022
CRM-M No.31105 of 2022 ...1...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr.No.128
CRM-M No.31105 of 2022
Date of Decision: 20th July, 2022.
Ramesh
...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Birmati & Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Atul Yadav Advocate,
for the petitioner.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
By way of the instant petition, the petitioner herein lays challenge
to the order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned SDJM,
Pataudi, District Gurugram, (for short "the trial Court") whereby the Criminal
Complaint Case bearing No.COMI/36/2015, preferred by him against the
respondents, under Sections 499/500 IPC, has been dismissed in default as well
as for want of prosecution.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts culminating in the filing of
the present petition, are that earlier, respondent No.1 had filed a criminal
complaint case against the petitioner, his brother and son as well but vide the
judgment dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure P-1), they were acquitted in the said
case. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the afore-mentioned Criminal
Complaint Case which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, at the preliminary
stage, in this petition and have also perused the file carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to some
unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear in the Court on
06.05.2022 and his absence on that day was not an intentional one but the trial
1 of 2
CRM-M No.31105 of 2022 ...2...
Court proceeded to dismiss the said complaint case and in these circumstances,
the petitioner be afforded another opportunity to pursue the above-said
complaint case further in the trial Court and the impugned order be set aside.
5. However, I do not find the afore-raised contention to be tenable at
all because a bare perusal of impugned order Annexure P-3 itself reveals that
the petitioner had filed the above-said complaint case against the respondents
in the year 2015 and the same has been dismissed by the trial Court on
06.05.2022 with specific observations to the effect that the complainant, i.e the
petitioner, had availed several effective opportunities and on that day, neither
the evidence was adduced nor the counsel for the complainant nor anyone else
on his (complainant's) behalf, had appeared in the Court despite the case having
been called several times till 4:30 PM and therefore, the same was dismissed in
default as well as for want of prosecution. The petitioner has not been able to
come forward with any fair, candid and plausible explanation for not
concluding his evidence in the long period of almost seven years, i.e from the
year 2015 till 06.05.2022. It being so, he does not deserve any concession, as
prayed for by him in the present petition.
6. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no illegality, infirmity, irregularity or
perversity in the impugned order Annexure P-3 as passed by the trial Court, so
as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the petition in hand,
being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
20.07.2022. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether Reportable? No
2 of 2
