IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO 87 of 2010 Date of Decision 30th March, 2011 __________________________________________________________ Rajinder Singh ….Petitioner. Versus Madan Singh ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the complaint has been dismissed by the learned Court below in absence of the petitioner as also the respondent-accused. 2. The reason advanced is that on 12.3.2008 the learned trial Court had fixed the case for 28.4.2008 which was wrongly noted by the counsel as 28.5.2008 and on that date, when the petitioner attended the Court, he came to know that his complaint has been dismissed for non-prosecution. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 3. This is a typical case in which not only the respondent but also the petitioner manipulated the judicial system to their advantage. What I find from the order dated 12.3.2008 is that the non-bailable warrants which had been issued against the respondent had been received back unexecuted. What the Court recorded was that such warrants had been issued against the respondents on 9.9.2003, 13.1.2004, 27.2.2004, 6.4.2004, 10.8.2004, 24.11.2004, 17.5.2005, 14.6.2005, 23.8.2005, 25.11.2005, 27.3.2006, 26.7.2006, 22.8.2006, 24.3.2007, 27.6.2007, 23.7.2007, 29.8.2007, 31.10.2007, 7.12.2007 and 31.1.2008. I need not observe that Courts cannot be used by litigants at their own pleasure with scant respect to the judicial process. The contempt with which the Court proceedings had been treated is writ large in the case. 4. On the aspect whether wrong date was noted or not, barring the allegation of the petitioner herein, I do not find any sufficient material on record to justify the averment. However, when I have gone through the record, what I find is that litigation seems to have been turned into one big party. I cannot but be deprecated this practice. I also find from the record that statement of the accused-respondent had been recorded on 26.10.2006 and if the order dated 12.3.2008 is considered, he successfully dodged the process of law. Without entering into this controversy further, I direct that the learned Court below shall take the complaint on its own record, subject to the petitioner paying ` 3500/- as costs before the learned Court below on the first date of appearance. The learned Court below 3 shall thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 22nd May, 2011. Petition stands disposed of. Let record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. March 30th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4