Crl. Misc. No. M-33320 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-33320 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 Baldev Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. B. S. Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondent no. 1. Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 9. None for respondent no. 10. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Baldev Singh complainant has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 08.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib thereby closing evidence of the petitioner-complainant by court order in criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner against respondents no. 2 to 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Crl. Misc. No. M-33320 of 2008 2 case file. In reply filed on behalf of respondents no.2 to 9, interim orders of the trial Magistrate have been reproduced. Perusal thereof reveals that the case was fixed for evidence of the complainant-petitioner for 10.01.2006 for the first time. However, the complainant did not lead his evidence for five dates of hearing i.e. on 10.01.2006, 08.05.2006, 09.10.2006, 15.05.2007 and 20.09.2007. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted last opportunity to produce his evidence on 08.04.2008. However, till then, the petitioner had not summoned any witness through assistance of the Court. When last opportunity was granted to the petitioner for 08.04.2008, then the petitioner deposited diet money of one witness Pritam Singh to further delay the trial and harass the respondents-accused. Pritam Singh witness was served but did not come present on 08.04.2008. He was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrant for 19.09.2008. Again last opportunity was granted. On 19.09.2008 also, no witness was present and even the complainant did not appear and his personal appearance was exempted. Case was again adjourned to 08.10.2008 and again last opportunity was granted, but again the complainant did not turn up nor any witness turned up. Thereupon, the trial Magistrate closed the evidence of the complainant- petitioner by court order (Annexure P-1), which has been impugned in the instant revision petition. Perusal of the aforesaid sequence of events reveals that the complainant did not even appear himself in the witness-box, much less examined any other witness in support of his case. His only purpose appears to be to harass respondents no.2 to 10 i.e. nine accused, who have appeared in the trial court on every date of hearing. As many as eight effective opportunities including three last opportunities have been granted to the complainant-petitioner for his evidence, but he has failed to lead an iota of evidence. The trial Magistrate was thus left with no option but to Crl. Misc. No. M-33320 of 2008 3 close the evidence of the complainant-petitioner by court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that witness Pritam Singh had been served for 08.04.2008 and thereafter, his bailable warrant was issued and therefore, evidence could not be closed by court order. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. State of Haryana and others reported as 2006 (4) R. C. R. (Criminal) 533. However, in the case of Ram Chander (supra), one more opportunity was given keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case. In the instant case, however, it has to be noticed with significance that for five dates of hearing, the complainant neither himself stepped into the witness-box, nor examined any other witness, nor summoned any witness through court. It was only when last opportunity was granted to the complainant for his evidence, the complainant deposited diet money of one witness. It was only in order to harass the accused-respondents no.2 to 10 by prolonging the trial. It is correct that witness Pritam Singh did not appear on 08.04.2008 despite service, but even thereafter, two opportunities were granted to the complainant, but on those two dates of hearing, the complainant himself also did not appear, nor any evidence was led. It is correct that on 19.09.2008, the complainant did not appear because of the death of his son on 11.09.2008, but there was no justification for his non-appearance even on the next date of hearing i.e. 08.10.2008, when contradictory pleas were taken for non-appearance of the complainant. Be that as it may, the fact remains that even after 08.04.2008, two opportunities were granted to the petitioner-complainant, but he did not produce his evidence even on those two dates of hearing. In all, eight effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner including three last opportunities. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality or perversity in the Crl. Misc. No. M-33320 of 2008 4 impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, the trial Magistrate has granted more than reasonable number of opportunities to the complainant for leading his evidence. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. August 17, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE