Crl. Misc. No. M-31479 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31479 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.10.2010 Sukhdev Singh …. Petitioner Versus Roop Singh and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of the order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha and the order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in terms of which the pre-charge evidence of the petitioner/complainant has been closed. Crl. Misc. No. M-31479 of 2010 [2] The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 452, 447, 427 and 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” - for short). It is alleged by the complainant that the respondents caused injuries to him while making an attempt to encroach his land. The learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 20.9.2008 summoned the accused for the offences under Sections 324, 452 and 427 IPC. The accused-respondents appeared before the learned trial Court and were released on bail. In terms of the order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure P1), the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class closed the evidence of the complainant-petitioner. It was inter alia observed that 'dasti' bailable warrants of Dr. Anil Garg had not been obtained nor warrant fee had been filed. Despite grant of eight effective opportunities, the complainant had failed to conclude his evidence. Even last opportunities were granted time and again for concluding pre-charge evidence and only one witness had been examined. Accordingly, it was observed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class that she did not find it appropriate to grant further opportunity to the complainant. Accordingly, the evidence of the complainant was closed by order. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order of the learned trial Magistrate filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Crl. Misc. No. M-31479 of 2010 [3] Patiala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala to whom the case was assigned vide order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P2) has dismissed the same. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in her order noticed that details of the various adjournments and despite that the petitioner had failed to produce his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate villager and is aged about 35 years and he does not know the legal procedure of issuance of warrants by the Courts for summoning the witnesses and as such the petitioner/complainant could not file the warrants fee for issuance of bailable warrants for summoning the doctor as a witness due to lack of knowledge. It is also submitted that the doctor who was to appear as a witness was previously working in Government Rajindera Hospital, Patiala and then he shifted to Forensic Medical Department, Gian Sagar Medical College, Banur and it was with great difficulty that the petitioner/complainant was liable to locate his whereabouts. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner/complainant was present on each and every date of hearing, but he remained under the impression that his statement would be recorded after recording the statement of Dr. Anil Garg; otherwise, the Court would have examined him. Crl. Misc. No. M-31479 of 2010 [4] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in her order dated 7.7.2010 has noticed various dates on which the case of the petitioner/complainant was taken up after the accused had put in appearance and despite that and despite being granted last opportunity, the petitioner had failed to lead his evidence. He did not deposit the diet money for summoning the witness, besides, he did not deposit the necessary warrant fee. The fact that he was an illiterate villager is by itself no ground to condone the delay that has been caused as he was represented by his counsel. Therefore, such a plea that he was an illiterate villager is untenable as substantial numbers of litigants are illiterate and are dependent on the legal literacy of their counsel. Therefore, the petitioner having been represented by his counsel, the plea that he was illiterate in the facts and circumstances of the present case is devoid of merit. Keeping in view the large number of opportunities granted to the petitioner/complainant to lead his evidence and despite his failure to do so and also in view of the sound reasoning recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, no ground for interference with the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is made out. Crl. Misc. No. M-31479 of 2010 [5] Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 27, 2010 amit