Ram Bhaj v. Sudershan Malik & ANR

-1CRM-M-39209 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39209 of 2014 Date of Decision: 06.05.2019 Ram Bhaj

...Petitioner

Versus

Sudershan Malik and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 01.05.2014 of the trial Court whereby complaint of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 500 read with Section 120-B IPC, was dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that on 24.03.2014 complaint of the petitioner was adjourned to 01.05.2014 by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak. However, inadvertently, learned counsel as well as petitioner-complainant wrongly noted the date as 06.05.

2014. Consequently, on 01.05.2014 none put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner-complainant. Therefore, complaint was dismissed in default. Absence of the petitioner was not intentional. In case, complaint is not restored, petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pleaded RAVINDER SINGH 2019.05.

-2CRM-M-39209 of 2014 the legality and validity of the impugned order. Heard.

Perusal of file shows that absence is not intentional. The petitioner is not likely to gain anything for his absence. The reason for nonappearance is that the counsel as well as the petitioner-complainant wrongly noted the date. Thus, it is apparent that as the petitioner is not likely to be benefited from the order and if allowed to stand, it will result in snatching of the substantial right of the petitioner.

In Om Parkash vs. M/s Golden Forest India Ltd. and others 2008(4) RCR (Crl.) 445, (P&H) wherein the identical stand was taken i.e. the reason for non-appearance being bona fide, complaint was restored to original number.

In order to render substantial justice and keeping in view the fact that if the order is allowed to stand, it will frustrate the right available to the petitioner. Thus, in view of Om Parkash's case (supra), the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 01.05.2014 is hereby set aside. The complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 20.05.2019 for further proceedings.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) May 06, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.05.10 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document