← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12123/2015dismissed

Jasbir Kaur v. U.T Administration Chandigarh & ORS

2015-08-13Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain2 pages

Crl. Misc.-M No. 12123 of 2015 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc.-M No. 12123 of 2015 Date of Decision: 13.8.2015.

Jasbir Kaur .....Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Ashu Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that absence of the petitioner before the Trial Court on 18.4.2014 was not intentional. In fact, petitioner had noted down a wrong date. When the petitioner visited the Court on 16.5.2014, she came to know that the complaint had been dismissed on 18.4.2014. Petitioner had filed a complaint regarding murder of her brother Puran Singh. A perusal of the order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) reveals that petitioner was granted 54 opportunities to enable her to complete her evidence. However, evidence of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 16.4.2014 and the case was adjourned to 18.4.2014 for arguments. However, on 18.4.2014, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.14 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Crl. Misc.-M No. 12123 of 2015 -2The Trial Court passed the following order on 18.4.2014:- "Case called several times since morning but neither the complainant nor anybody has appeared on his behalf. It is already 3.50 P.M. It appears that the complainant is not interested in pursuing the complaint further. As such, complaint is dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room."

Since the case was listed for arguments on 18.4.2014, presence of the petitioner was necessary. However, petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court on 18.4.2014 and left with no other alternative, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint in default.

Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE August 13, 2015 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.14 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh