Criminal Misc. No.M-2611 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-2611 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.7.2011 Kailash Chand ......Petitioner Versus Chuni Lal and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Babbar Bhan, Advocate for Mr.N.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 2.8.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution and the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure P-5). After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Criminal Misc. No.M-2611 of 2011 2 The petitioner-complainant had filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), 1860, read with Sections 193/ 209/ 211 and 182 IPC. On 2.8.2006, following order was passed by the trial Court:- “No evidence of complainant is present despite last opportunity. Neither the complainant nor his counsel has put in appearance. Case has been called several times since morning. It is now 2.00 pm. None has appeared on behalf of complainant. It is already 3.30 pm. Further wait is not justified. Present being a summons case, therefore, owing to absence of complainant and his counsel, present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. File be consigned to record room after the compliance.” Since the complainant had failed to appear, the trial Court, left with no other alternative, had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. The case was listed for evidence of the complainant on the date fixed and hence, it was necessary for the complainant- petitioner to have appeared before the Court and lead his evidence. In case the complaint had been listed before the trial Court for some other formal purpose, the trial Court could have adjourned the case but since the case was listed for the evidence of the complainant, the presence of the complainant was very necessary on 2.8.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-complainant preferred a revision petition. On 13.7.2010, the following order was passed in the revision petition:- “The case called several times but none appeared on Criminal Misc. No.M-2611 of 2011 3 behalf of the complainant/revisionist despite giving last call at 1.30 pm. This shows that the complainant/revisionist is not interested to prosecute the present revision petition. Furthermore, it is also pointed out that the complainant/revisionist had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 500 of the IPC read with Sections 193, 209, 211 and 182 of the IPC but when the case was at the stage of evidence of the complainant, none appeared on his behalf and accordingly, vide impugned order dated 2.8.2006 the complaint was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petition was filed by the complainant/revisionist. But again he has not cared to properly prosecute the present revision petition. There is nothing on the file to challenge the legality of the impugned order dated 2.8.2006. 2. Hence, thereby keeping in view the facts, that there is nothing on the file to challenge the legality of impugned order dated 2.8.2006 and further the revisionist/complainant has absented and failed to prosecute the present revision petition, therefore, the impugned order dated 2.8.2006 is upheld hereby dismissing the present revision petition. Lower court record be sent back along with the copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.” The revision petition was also dismissed as none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, from the above Criminal Misc. No.M-2611 of 2011 4 impugned orders, it is evident that the petitioner was not interested in proceeding with the complaint and had failed to appear before the trial Court as well as the Court of revision. Hence, no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 28, 2011 anita