Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hansmani Rohni vs Rajesh Singh Gahlot (Saini) on 31 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C. No.43412/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 31st OF MAY, 2024
MISCELLANOUES CRIMINAL CASE No. 43412 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
HANSMANI ROHNI S/O SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR
ROHNI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED/ LABOUR R/O WARD NO.7/10,
UNDER BRIDGE ROAD, PRESS COLONY, BACK
SIDE OF KARANGALE KIRANA STORE,
SHAHDOL, POST OFFICE/ POLICE STATION
SHAHDOL, TAHSIL SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH KHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJESH SINGH GAHLOT (SAINI) S/O SHRI
B.S. SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MONEY LENDER R/O WARD
NO.21/ 28, KRISHNA COLONY, BURHAR
ROAD, SHAHDOL POST OFFICE/ POLICE
STATION SHAHDOL, TAHSIL SOHAGPUR
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SHAHDOL, DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
2 M.Cr.C. No.43412/2023 This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 09/09/2023 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge Shahdol in Criminal Revision No.33/2023, by which order dated 30/05/2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in SCNIA No.180/2021 has been affirmed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present application in short are that the applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant closed his evidence on 17/01/2023. On 07/02/2023, statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the case was fixed for 21/02/2023 for examination of defence evidence. On 21/02/2023, the Presiding Officer was on leave and accordingly, the case was fixed for 02/03/2023 for examination of defence evidence. On 02/03/2023, applicant engaged new counsel who took time to file documents in support of the applicant. Thereafter the case was fixed for 20/03/2023. On 20/03/2023, the case was adjourned on the ground that defence witnesses are absent and the case was fixed for 01/04/2023. On 01/04/2023, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned for 03/04/2023. On 03/04/2023, a new counsel was engaged by the applicant who again sought time and accordingly, the case was fixed for 17/04/2023. On 17/04/2023, the Presiding Officer was on leave and accordingly, the case was adjourned for 03/05/2023. On 03/05/2023, an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. was filed and accordingly, the case was adjourned for 22/05/2023. On 22/05/2023, again the applicant sought time to lead defence evidence and the case was fixed for 30/05/2023 and on 30/05/2023, the Trial Court after observing that 8 opportunities have already been granted to the applicant to lead defence evidence and he 3 M.Cr.C. No.43412/2023 has failed to do so, therefore his right to lead evidence was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments on 13/06/2023.
3. It appears that the applicant filed a Criminal Revision before Third Additional Session Judge, Shahdol on 19/06/2023 against the order dated 30/05/2023. However prior thereto, i.e. on 13/06/2023, the applicant by engaging another counsel had already moved an application before the Trial Court for grant of further opportunity to lead defence evidence.
4. Applicant has deliberately not filed the order-sheets of the Trial Court which were recorded subsequent to 13/06/2023.
5. The complainant has filed the order-sheets of the Trial Court, according to which, it is clear that on 28/06/2023, complainant filed his reply to the application filed under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C.
6. It is once again clarified that on 28/06/2023 another Lawyer had appeared. Thereafter on 18/07/2023, 25/07/2023 applicant sought time to argue on the application under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C. In the meanwhile, applicant had already filed Criminal Revision, therefore record of the Trial Court was sent to the Revisional Court which was received back on 24/08/2023 and accordingly, the case was fixed for 11/09/2023 for arguments on application under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C. Again on 06/09/2023, the record was sent back to the Revisional Court which was received back on 11/09/2023 along with order of the Revisional Court by which the Revision filed by the applicant was dismissed and the case was fixed for 25/09/2023 for arguments on application under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C.
4 M.Cr.C. No.43412/20237. On 25/09/2023, the case was adjourned at the request of the applicant. Thereafter on 03/10/2023, the applicant prayed for stay of proceedings on the ground that he has already filed present application before the High Court but since no interim order was passed, therefore prayer for stay of further proceedings was rejected and the case was fixed for 19/10/2023 for arguments on application under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C and on 19/10/2023, 02/11/2023, 20/11/2023 arguments could not be heard and ultimately by order dated 01/12/2023, the application filed by applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.
8. All these facts are missing in the present application.
9. Although this application was filed by the applicant on 22/09/2023 but the factum of filing application on 13/06/2023 under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C. has been suppressed. Thereafter, application under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by order dated 01/12/2023 but even that order has been suppressed.
10. Counsel for the applicant tenders his apology on behalf of the applicant in not disclosing the material facts.
11. Be that whatever it may be.
12. So far as the merits are concerned, this Court has already considered that the complainant had closed his evidence on 17/01/2023 and statement of applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 07/02/2023 and thereafter 5 opportunities were granted to the applicant but he was more or less interested in changing the counsels and without any reason he did not examine any defence witnesses. Furthermore, his application under Sections 311, 315 of Cr.P.C. has also been dismissed.
5 M.Cr.C. No.43412/202313. Although this Court was inclined to impose heavy cost on the applicant for suppressing the material facts but it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that cost may not be imposed.
14. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that since the applicant has failed to prove that he could not examine his defence witnesses because of any reasonable reason, therefore no sympathetic view can be taken in favour of the applicant by granting last opportunity to examine defence witnesses.
15. When a person is not interested in disposal of the case and is merely interested in getting the matter delayed by hook and crook and deliberately do not produce his defence witnesses and also did not examine himself under Section 315 of Cr.P.C., no case is made out warranting interference.
16. Accordingly, order dated 09/09/2023 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Shahdol in Criminal Revision No.33/2023 and order dated 30/05/2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in SCNIA No.180/2021, are hereby affirmed.
17. Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.05.31 20:25:27 +05'30'