IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 27333 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 16, 2011 Rajinder .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Dilbagh Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure P-3), whereby his prayer for restoration of the complaint, which was dismissed in default on 10.1.2008, is declined. The prayer of the petitioner was considered and finding that the petition has been dismissed in default on 10.1.2008, and that the application for restoring is filed nearly after one year and that the petitioner failed to show the cause of his absence, the Court had declined to recall the order. It was further observed that there is no provision for restoration of the complaint, which was dismissed in default for Crl. Misc. No. M- 27333 of 2010 -2- want of prosecution. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if there is no provision for recall of the complaint, which was dismissed in default, then the complaint could also not be dismissed in default. In this regard he has relied upon Joga Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 770 to say that where pre-summoning evidence is recorded, the Court cannot dismiss the complaint for non- appearance of the complainant. This Court in Joga Singh's case (supra) was dealing with the issue where pre-summoning evidence had been recorded. In present case no evidence has been recorded at pre-summoning stage. Ratio of Joga Singh's case(supra), thus, may not apply. As per Section 256 Cr.P.C, if the summons are issued on the complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused unless it is proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. This Section may indicate that rather the Court was required to acquit the respondents. The Court could have adjourned the case if complainant would have been represented by a pleader and if the Court had recorded the opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary. In other words, the complaint case could have been adjourned, if the Magistrate had dispensed with the attendance of the complainant. It may give an indication that the respondent rather may have grievance against this order on the Crl. Misc. No. M- 27333 of 2010 -3- ground that he could have been acquitted rather than dismissing the complaint in default. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. December 16, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE