IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-8150 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 07, 2011 Manpreet Singh Bilga .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Jaspal Kaur .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure P6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide which, evidence of the complainant has been closed by order of the Court. 2. It has been noticed that notice of accusation was given to the respondent-accused on 12.5.2009 and thereafter, the case was fixed for examination of the complainant’s witnesses. It has also been noticed that on perusal of the file, it is made evident that the complainant has availed several effective opportunities but has failed to Crl. Misc. No. M-8150 of 2011 [2] conclude the evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it has wrongly been recorded in the impugned order that complainant availed of several effective opportunities. 4. I have gone through the interlocutory orders including orders dated 9.7.2009, 19.8.2009, 3.2.2010, 25.3.2010, 22.4.2010 and 6.5.2010. On the said dates, complainant’s witnesses were required to remain present, however, they did not appear. The witnesses were required to be produced by the complainant at his/ her own responsibility. Last opportunities were also given. 5. I find that the impugned order has been passed for valid and legally tenable reasons and therefore, the same deserves no interference in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner- complainant has been delaying the proceedings for the reason that petitioner was abroad. The Court process cannot be kept in abeyance for the convenience of the complainant who has approached the Court of law. For non appearance of the petitioner, proceedings have been delayed considerably. 6. The petition is dismissed. 7. The Trial Magistrate is directed to conclude the proceedings within three months of next date of hearing. (AJAI LAMBA) September 07, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?