Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Rajdeep Singh And Anr vs Jagjit Singh Dardi on 19 December, 2024

                                     1

  IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
 JUDGE - 05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
                       NEW DELHI


CS No. 266/2024

1. Sh. Rajdeep Singh
s/o Sh. Balwant Singh
r/o H.No.682, SST Nagar,
Patiala - 147001.

2. Ranjit Singh
s/o Sh. Balkar Singh
r/o H. No. 650, SST Nagar
Patiala -147003.
                                                        .......Revisionist

              VERSUS


S.Jagjit Singh Dardi
s/o Late Giani Harnam Singh
House No. 593, SST Nagar,
Patiala -147003.

Also At:
202, INS Building, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-110001.                                       ...... Respondent

                                   Date of Institution : 09.05.2024
                                   Arguments heard on : 06.12.2024
                                   Date of Decision     : 19.12.2024

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by Ms. Anamika Ld. MM whereby the Ld. MM had Cr. Rev. 266/2024 Rajdeep v/s S.Jagjit Singh Dardi 1/6 2 dismissed the application of the accused persons seeking dismissal of the complaint U/s 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [in short Cr.PC].

2. Notice of the revision petition was directed upon the complainant/respondent herein - he had appeared and duly contested the revision petition.

3. Heard either side. TCR had been summoned.

4. The legality and validity of the order dated 30.03.2024 whereby Ld. M.M. had refused to dismiss the complaint U/s 256 Cr.PC is under challenge before this Court.

4.1 Now the grounds which have been urged by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists/accused persons before the Ld. Trial Court are summarized as here under :

i. Post summoning - the complainant was regularly not appearing or was absent and this fact was noted by the Ld. Trial Court still, resort to Section 256 Cr.PC was not taken. ii. Merely because the accused persons were exempted does not mean that complainant can also choose to come at its own convenience.

iii. The complaint was in a manner filed to wreck vendetta and non appearance was a deliberate move to seek revenge and Cr. Rev. 266/2024 Rajdeep v/s S.Jagjit Singh Dardi 2/6 3 the proceedings should not be permitted to be converted into such like proceedings wherein only one party comes/appears before the Court and the other party - the complainant choose to appear at its own/whims and facies.

5. For the sake of convenience let me have re-look at Section 256 Cr.PC. Section 256 Cr.PC deals/comes in the chapter of trial of summoning cases by Magistrate i.e. chapter XX of the Cr.PC. If I just have a re-look at the chapter itself once the summoning of the accused is done, then the next provision is U/s 251 Cr.PC which itself suggests that when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which he is accused of shall be stated to him. In fact this chapter directly commences with framing of notice - summoning is to be followed by framing of notice or as per the language of the legislature - particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him. There is no proceedings for supply of copies or otherwise in any manner any hearing on the aspect of charge alike in warrant triable cases.

5.1 Viewing from the said perspective in the summon trial cases the procedure is not so rigid and steps or stages are dispensed with - procedure of supply of copies, vesting the accused of a right to address arguments, obligation upon the Court to pass a detailed order in the event if the accused is discharged or pass a formal order of charge or framing of formal charge. It is stating/informing the substance of the accusation to the accused and asking as to whether he pleads guilty or has any defence Cr. Rev. 266/2024 Rajdeep v/s S.Jagjit Singh Dardi 3/6 4 to make.

5.2 Proceeding further Section 252 Cr.PC speaks of conviction on recording of plea of guilty. Section 252 Cr.PC is a sub specie of Section 251 Cr.PC. Coming to Section 254 Cr.PC it states that if the Magistrate does not convict then he shall proceed to take all the evidence as may be produced in support. Further, he shall also take all the evidence as the accused wishes to produce. Section 254(1) Cr.PC is the relevant section wherein the evidence insofar as the prosecution or defence is to be adduced/considered. Section 255 Cr.PC deal with the scenario viz a viz the acquittal or conviction depending upon the merits of the case. In short if I just a re-look at Section 251 to 255 Cr.PC the procedure provides for expeditious trial and minimizes the interventions.

5.3 In the light of the aforesaid preceding Sections, Section 256 Cr.PC envisages two scenarios - non appearance or death of complainant. Obviously insofar as the present case is concerned it is not the case that the complainant has expired. What the revisionist contends is that the complainant often missed the proceedings and that too deliberately. Emphasis was made on the word 'shall' U/s 256 Cr.PC to contend that the Magistrate has no option but to acquit the accused. I disagree with the same. First of all the section has a proviso in itself i.e. where the complainant was represented through pleader and secondly the Court is of the view that the personal appearance of the complainant is not necessary.

Rajdeep v/s S.Jagjit Singh Dardi                                     4/6
                                         5

5.4           Now the private complaint for defamation was pursued and a
pleader was also engaged.          The accused persons were also exempted.

What in pith and substance Section 256 Cr.PC visualize or envisage is the abandonment of the complainant from the proceedings. This can be inferred by constant abstaining or otherwise not proceeding with the complaint. Qua the said aspect there is no finding recorded by the Ld. M.M. or otherwise decipherable from the record. Mere absence is not a ground for dismissal of the complaint U/s 256 Cr.PC which in itself would negate the summoning order which otherwise also cannot be reviewed by the Court or even the order of discharge can be passed.

5.5 The reasons assigned by the Ld. Trial Court to my mind i.e. counting each and every date of hearing or otherwise treating criminal proceedings parimateria with civil proceedings may not be applicable however before proceeding further U/s 256 Cr.PC and to dismiss the complaint it is imperative to give a finding that the complainant has willfully abandoned the proceeding or willfully abstained which affects the trial - the expeditious trial as envisaged U/s 251 to 255 Cr.PC.

5.6 As such in my considered opinion the revision petition is meritless. It is ordered to be dismissed.

5.7 However, before parting on next five dates of hearing the complainant shall appear without fail personally or through VC.

Pronounced in open Court
on 19.12.2024                                   (Sumit Dass)
                                       Additional Sessions Judge -05
                                   New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
                                                New Delhi.




Cr. Rev. 266/2024
Rajdeep v/s S.Jagjit Singh Dardi                                        6/6