Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : July 28, 2009
Balbir Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
Bhagwant Singh .... Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 4969 of 2009 :
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is
accompanied by affidavit, delay of 81 days in filing the revision petition is
condoned.
Main Case :
Complainant Balbir Singh has filed this revision petition
assailing order dated 08.09.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Tarn Taran thereby discharging the respondent Bhagwant Singh in
criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner under Sections 392, 452, 34,
504, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), Police
Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M) 2
case file.
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that after summoning of
the respondent as accused vide order dated 19.11.2004, for offences under
Sections 452 and 506 IPC, the accused put in appearance on 06.05.2005.
The case was thereafter fixed for pre-charge evidence of the petitioner-
complainant on various dates of hearing. Ultimately, on 22.01.2008, the
petitioner gave undertaking to conclude his pre-charge evidence on the next
date of hearing i.e. on 05.03.2008. However, the case was thereafter
adjourned to 25.03.2008 and 13.06.2008 and finally to 08.09.2008, but the
complainant did not conclude his pre-charge evidence. The complainant
had examined only one witness Gurmit Singh. The learned Magistrate by
impugned order did not grant further adjournment to the complainant for
his evidence. Since the complainant had himself not stepped into witness-
box, the learned Magistrate found that there was no sufficient evidence to
frame charge against the accused. The accused respondent was accordingly
discharged.
From the aforesaid facts revealed by the impugned order, it is
manifest that the petitioner has miserably failed to lead evidence for framing
of charge against the respondent. The petitioner himself did not step into
the witness box and therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against
him. Statement of Gurmit Singh alone, in the absence of statement of
complainant himself, was not sufficient to frame charge against the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-
complainant may be granted one more opportunity to lead pre-charge
evidence. I find no force in the contention. The petitioner has already been
granted indulgence by the trial Magistrate. As noticed herein above, the
petitioner on 22.01.2008, undertook to conclude his entire evidence on the
next date of hearing. The case was adjourned to 05.03.2008 and thereafter
adjourned to 25.03.2008, 13.06.2008 and finally to 08.09.2008, but the
Crl. Revn. No. 233 of 2009 (O&M) 3
complainant failed to conclude his pre-charge evidence. Even prior to
22.01.2008, the complainant had availed of numerous opportunities for pre-
charge evidence because the accused had put in appearance on 06.05.2005.
In these circumstances, no ground for granting another opportunity to the
petitioner for leading pre-charge evidence is made out.
For the reasons recorded herein above, I find that the impugned
order of learned Magistrate does not suffer from any perversity or illegality
or such grave error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
July 28, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE