Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raseela Begam vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2022
CRM-M-3388-2022 -1-
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3388-2022
Date of Decision: March 23, 2022
Raseela Begam
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.D.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)
Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via
Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per
instructions.
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order
dated 07.07.2021, Annexure P-1, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Yamuna Nagar, whereby complaint No.236 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner under Sections 376, 506 IPC, titled as Raseela Begam versus
Khalil etc.,on 28.11.2019, P.S.City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, has
been dismissed for non-prosecution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari, had illegally declined the
prayer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 376 and 506
IPC against the accused Khalil, as the police did not lodge the FIR on her
1 of 3
request. Having failed in lodging the FIR, the petitioner availed the remedy
of filing a criminal complaint in which two witnesses stood examined in pre
charge evidence and the case was adjourned to 07.07.2021. He has
contended that it was informed to the petitioner by her counsel that as per
the fresh order, due to the ongoing pandemic, only urgent nature of cases
like bail etc. would be taken up. As she was made to understand that the
case would be adjourned, she did not appear and later on she came to know
that her case had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.07.2021. An
application for restoration of the same was filed in the Court on 02.08.2021,
however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that injustice has
been caused to the petitioner as in the proceedings of the criminal complaint,
two witnesses had already been examined in pre-charge evidence. The
petitioner is an illiterate lady and her application for restoration was found to
be not maintainable. So it was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
17.01.2022. He submits that the view taken by the learned Judicial
Magistrate is totally against the law settled and thus deserves to be set aside.
He relies upon Joga Singh vs State of Punjab and others 2007(1) RCR
(Criminal) 770.
Heard.
The precise grievance of the petitioner is that she had filed a
criminal complaint under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. However, the same
was dismissed in default vide impugned order dated 07.07.2021. Thereafter,
the petitioner made an effort for restoration of the same. However, the same
was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn. The case was never decided by
the trial Court on merits but the same was dismissed for non-prosecution.
2 of 3
The judicial precedent relied upon by the petitioner laid down that the Court
cannot dismiss the complaint in default, however, the same has to be dealt
with in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sections 203 and 204
Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, it is apparent that the learned Court of
JMIC has fallen in error in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment relied
upon, the Court concerned is directed to restore the complaint No.236 of
2019, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, titled as Raseela Begam vs Khalil
etc., P.S.City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar to its original number and
decide the same after issuing notice to the concerned parties in accordance
with the provisions of law.
The petition is allowed in above-mentioned terms.
March 23 , 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
3 of 3
