High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dalip Chand Gera vs State Of Haryana Etc on 15 September, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Chand Gera vs State Of Haryana Etc on 15 September, 2008
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                              CHANDIGARH.



                                              Criminal Misc.38425-M of 2003

                              DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 15, 2008



DALIP CHAND GERA                                       ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                     VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ETC.                                  .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. Sidarath Sarup, AAG, Haryana.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,

has been filed praying for directions to the effect that order dated

24.12.1999 in regard to summoning of the accused, may be complied with

and the trial be expedited.

The facts, as they emerge, are that the petitioner-complainant

lodged a complaint, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.1996

(Annexure P-2). The complainant carried a revision petition, which has

been allowed vide order dated 24.12.1999 (Annexure P-3). The operative

part of the order reads as under:-

“In the light of above discussion and in view of the
pronouncements of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court
the order dated 29.7.96 passed by learned C.J.M. Gurgaon is
Criminal Misc.38425-M of 2003 2

hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to that court
for rehearing the complainant and then to issue process
against the accused as per law. The complainant is directed
to appear before the trial court on 12.1.2000 for further
proceedings. Lower Court file be sent back with the with the
copy of this order.”

The zimny orders passed by the Magistrate have been placed

on record as Annexure P-5 (collectively).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not come present to

inform the court as to what has transpired in the preceding five years.

It seems that the matter has been rendered infructuous on

account of afflux of time, particularly considering the nature of prayer

made in the petition.

Dismissed as infructuous.

It is, however, made clear that in case any cause of action

survives, the petitioner-complainant shall be at liberty to file an

application.

September 15, 2008                                       ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                             JUDGE