Delhi District Court
Dhirender Kumar Rai vs The State on 13 March, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. K. SARVARIA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH WEST), ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Crl. Revision. No. 04/2013
Dhirender Kumar Rai,
S/o Sh.Shiv Murat Rai
R/o O-181, Mangolpuri,
Delhi - 83. .... Petitioner
VERSUS
The State
(NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent
Date of institution: 13.02.2013
Date when arguments were heard: 11.03.2013
Date of Judgment: 13.03.2013
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 6.7.2012 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (in short M.M.) by which the complaint case of the petitioner was dismissed Along with revision petition, an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is also filed. The composite arguments were heard on the application for condonation of delay as well as in the main revision petition.
2. I have heard ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, gone through the record and relevant provisions of law.
3. Before deciding revision petition, the application for condonation of delay needs to be decided. The reason for condonation of delay is that the petitioner has already informed his previous counsel that he was busy in election of MCD and would not be able to attend the case but Dhirender Kumar Rai Vs State 2 previous counsel did not appear before the court leading to dismissal of the case.
4. Ld. Addl. PP strongly opposed the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
5. It is true that revision petition ought to be filed filed within 90 days of order of dismissal of complaint i.e. 6.7.2012 but it was filed on 12.2.13. There is delay of about 3 months in filing the revision petition but at the same time it is to be seen that to give substantial justice to the parties, criminal complaints needs to adjudicated on merits. Dismissal of criminal complaints on technical ground of non appearance is not preferable to its disposal on merits by affording opportunity of being heard both the parties. Moreso, when it is due to lapse of counsel for want of appearance before the court leading to dismissal of the complaint. Therefore, liberal view should be taken. The delay in fling the revision petition is condoned subject to payment of Rs.500/- to DLSA (NW), Rohini Courts.
6. Now, I come to the main revision petition. Here again, the arguments are almost similar. As already stated, the preferable mode of disposal of criminal complaints is its disposal on merit to give substantial justice to parties and not disposal of complaint on technical ground. Further offences alleged in the complaint are under Sections 380/452/506/323/34 IPC which would make the complaint case the warrant trial case. Unlike the summons trial cases in which the procedural law by virtue of Section 256 Cr.P.C. provides dismissal of complaints in default there is no such provision in the warrant trial cases for dismissal of the complaint in default. Therefore, the impugned order dated 6.7.2012 suffers from this technical defect, the complaint being with regard to warrant trial cases. Impugned order suffers from material irregularity and is not proper and same is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. Complaint filed by the petitioner be restored to its Dhirender Kumar Rai Vs State 3 original position subject to payment of Rs.500/- each to Delhi Legal Services Aid (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi and Rohini Court Bar Association. The petitioner to appear before ld. trial court on 20.03.2013 at 10.00 a.m. The trial court record be returned along with the copy of this order. The order be sent to the server (www. delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The revision file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on 13th March, 2013 (S.K. SARVARIA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (N/W) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Dhirender Kumar Rai Vs State