IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Rev.No.93 of 2007 Date of decision: 2.5.2008 Ram Lal Petitioner Versus Arvind Kashyap Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? . For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh K.Lal, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J.(oral) The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Solan, vide which he did not summon the respondent in a case under Section 506,523 and 504 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act under which the complaint was filed before the trial Court. The trial Court after referring to the contradictions in the case of the complainant and the fact that no action was taken by the police on the earlier complaint filed by the complainant, the trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that the complainant had also filed a complaint to the Police, copy of which was also attached with the file but the record of the police was not summoned or the Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. complainant was never asked to summon the record of the police as to what action was taken by the police on the complaint filed by him. The trial Court referred to the contradictions in the complaint made to the police as well as the one filed before the Court and after referring to the contradictions and the fact that no action was taken by the police, no action was taken on his complaint, and the learned trial Court refused to summon the respondent. The learned trial Court had also put the onus upon the complainant as to why action was not taken by the police on his complaint. It is not for the complainant to prove as to why action was not taken on his complaint though an opportunity could have been given to the complainant to summon the record of the police to prove the fate of the complaint. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the leaned trial Court dismissing the case of the complainant cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. The complainant shall be given an opportunity to produce the evidence in the case about the previous complaint and the learned trial Court shall consider the evidence so led by the complainant and after considering the evidence, it shall pass an appropriate order as to whether a case is made out or not against the respondent. The complainant shall appear before the learned trial Court on 30.5.2008 and the trial Court shall proceed with the case in the light of the observations made above. The petition is allowed accordingly. 2nd May, 2008. (V.K.Ahuja),J. (SDS)