IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.573 of 2008 SHEONATH MAHTO @ SHEONATH KOERI, SON OF LATE GHULETAN MAHTO @ BHULETAN KOERI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMHARI, P.S. KURAHNI, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABHUA) --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJ NARAYAN SINGH 3. TEJ NARAYAN SINGH SL. NO. 2 AND 3 ARE SONS OF LATE SURAJ SINGH 4. SANJAY SINGH @ MUNNA 5. AJAY SINGH @ NETA SL. NO. 4 AND 5 ARE SON OF TEJ NARAYAN SINGH 6. BACHANU SINGH, SON OF RAJ NARAYAN SINGH SL. NO. 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KAMHARI, P.S. KURAHRI, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABHUA). --- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 4 6.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 19.9.2007, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Criminal Revision No. 114 of 2007/42 of 2007. The facts are that the petitioner filed a case on 14.8.2004 in the police station under Section 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter he also filed a complaint case for the same offence on 16.8.2004. The complaint case remained pending and the police case proceeded and after investigation final form was submitted on 14.3.2005. In the mean time, the petitioner has also filed protest-cum- complaint petition dated 12.1.2005. The Court thereafter by order dated 7.9.2005 contained in annexure-5 passed an order accepting the final form and amalgamating the complaint case filed on 16.8.2004 and the protest petition filed on 12.1.2005 and transferred both the cases to the Court of Sri A.K. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 2 Bhabhua to fix a date in the case. After the order dated 7.9.2005 was passed accepting the final form, the petitioner did not appear before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. The contention of the petitioner is that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhabhua ought to have issued notice to him and then only could he have known about the date fixed with respect to proceeding in the complaint case. This Court finds that the order dated 7.9.2005 was passed after hearing both the parties. Once the order has been passed in presence of the parties concerned, they should be pursuing the matter. The Court can understand if the matter is not pursued for a few dates, but here the Court finds that the petitioners did not approach the Court or bother to find out about his complaint case right from 7.9.2005 up to 24.1.2007. The shoe pinches because of the fact that in the police case there has been a recommendation to proceed under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Now that the complaint case no. 896 of 2004 has been dismissed, the Court is going to proceed under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, as a result of which the petitioner would have to face prosecution. When the order was passed finally for taking steps under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has woken up and has challenged the proceeding by submitting that the Court ought to have passed a reasoned order and cannot dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. In my opinion the Court was justified in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution in view of the fact that the petitioners 3 have not given any explanation for his absence for a period of three years and in fact it was only when they were to be prosecuted and summons were issued, then the petitioners woke up and have come to this Court challenging the order of dismissal of the complainant. I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. The order dated 19.9.2007 is perfectly justified. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)