Crl.MC 458/2011 Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 14, 2011 + Crl. MC No. 458/2011 % 14.02.2011 Rajbir Singh Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar Bansal & Ors. ...Respondents Counsels: Mr. M.N. Kural and Ms. Pushpa Sharma for petitioner. None for respondents. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORAL 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 6th October 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of learned MM dated 26th June, 2010 was dismissed. 2. The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint under various sections against respondents herein in the year 1997. During pendency of proceedings complainant Ram Richhpal Sharma died and in his place his Lr, the present petitioner, was substituted. The learned MM closed the pre-summoning evidence of the complainant on 16th September 2009 i.e. after about 12 years of filing of the complaint. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling the witnesses. This application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 26th October 2010. Thereafter, the Crl.MC 458/2011 Page 2 Of 2 complaint itself was dismissed vide order dated 29th July, 2010 as no evidence had come on record to summon the respondents. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Court observed that despite the complaint having been filed in 1997 from 5th May, 2000 till 16th September 2010, no evidence was led by the complainant, under these circumstances, the learned MM was justified in closing the evidence. Even after 16th September 2009, the complainant kept on taking adjournments on one or the other ground and moved application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 16th May, 2010 for examining himself as a witness. It is this application of the petitioner/ complainant which was dismissed. The learned ASJ observed that there was no reason to allow the revision as the order of learned MM did not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. 3. I consider that the case in hand reflects the callous attitude of the petitioner/ complainant who filed a complaint just for the sake of filing the same. The complaint was filed in 1997 and even the complainant was not examined for 13 years. The two courts below were justified in closing the complainant’s evidence. I find no reason to entertain this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. February 14, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd