Crl. Revision No.1121 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1121 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 30, 2010 Hindoc Impex ........Petitioner Versus Mr. Jatinder Kanwal Thakur ........Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Saini, Advocate for the respondent. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 15.9.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been appearing on all dates and due to his visit to Meerut to meet his mother, he could not appear in the Court on 15.9.2007. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner had also not appeared on 10.7.2007 and the case was adjourned for 15.9.2007 for complainant evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Petitioner had filed the complaint on the allegations that the Crl. Revision No.1121 of 2008 2 respondent has misappropriated a sum of Rs.8,14,097/- A perusal of the interim order placed on record reveals that on the complaint, filed by the petitioner, respondent was ordered to be summoned to face trial under Section 408, 420 IPC vide order dated 19.7.2002. Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time for pre-charge evidence of the complainant. On 10.7.2007 petitioner had failed to appear and the following order was passed:- “Complainant did not turn up despite repeated calls. Now the case is adjourned to 15.9.07 for further proceedings.” Thereafter on 15.9.07 petitioner again failed to appear and the following order was passed:- “ Case called for several times since morning but none has come present for and on behalf of the complainant. It is already 3.00. P.M. Waited sufficiently. Perusal of the file reveals that the complainant in the present case is not appearing since 10.7.07. In these circumstances, court is of the opinion that the complainant is no more interested in prosecution of his present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed in default for want of prosecution. Accused is discharged accordingly. File be now consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.” Since the case was listed for pre-charge evidence of the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner was necessary before the trial Court on 15.9.2007. The petitioner had failed to appear on the earlier date also and the trial Court had adjourned the case to 15.9.2007, but the petitioner had Crl. Revision No.1121 of 2008 3 failed to appear on the said date also. In these circumstances, the trial Court was left with no other option but to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) April 30, 2010 JUDGE Anand