Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Hp on 22 June, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr.MMO No.281 of 2022 Date of Decision: 22.06.2023 __ _________________________________________________ Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent ___________________________________________________ Coram r Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate.
For the respondent: Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
_________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the impugned order dated 16.12.2021 passed in UTR CR No.68/2015, titled Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.III, Una, District Una, H.P., whereby the case FIR No.127/2014, dated 21.05.2014, under Sections 279, 417, 423, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS 2465, 468, 109 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), .
registered at Police Station Una, District Una, H.P., was ordered to be kept as untraced. The impugned order dated 16.12.2021 reads as under:-
"File taken up from proper order. Case called time and again however, neither the complainant put up appearance before the Court nor any counsel appeared on his behalf. Perusal of case file shows that on last date also complainant didn't turn up for his case.
r Heard. Perused the case file. A case FIR No.127/2014 dated 21.05.2014 under section 379, 417, 473, 465, 168, 109, 1208 IPC was registered at PS Una, District Una, H.P. After investigation police has filed an untraced report stating that despite all efforts made to trace out the culprit no clue has been found and hence, the uniraced report is prepared. Notice of the present untraced report was issued to the complainant who initially appeared and filed protest petition however, today complainant, did not appear before the Court despite calling time and again which clearly indicates to the fact that he has nothing to say in the present case. Therefore, I have no reason to disagree with the untraced report prepared by the police. Hence, the present case FIR is ordered to be kept as untraced, be revived as and when the accused is apprehended. Police record be returned to SDPO concerned and that of this Court along with copy of FIR and other relevant documents. Be consigned to record room."::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS 3
2. It will be pertinent to mention here that on .
05.03.2014 , the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una for issuance of a direction to the police authorities for registration of FIR under Section 379, 417, 465, 468, 474, 109, 120-B and 34, IPC. Vide order dated 13.05.2014, Annexure P-III, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una passed an order directing the SHO of the concerned police station to proceed in accordance with law under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. On the direction of SHO, Police Station Una, the investigation in the matter was carried out by the police and thereafter status report was filed, thereby stating that the police is unable to ascertain as to who had signed the disputed documents.
3. The petitioner filed a protest petition dated 14.03.2016 against the status report filed by the police. The learned trial Court directed the State to file reply to the protest petition. Thereafter, the matter was being listed on various dates and on 27.09.2021, the case was listed for proper orders as the Judge was on leave and the next date given was 16.12.2021.
::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS 4However, on 16.12.2021, the learned trial Court passed the .
impugned order in the absence of the complainant without issuing any notice to him to appear before it. When the case was listed for proper orders on the previous date, i.e. 27.09.2021, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have issued notice to the complainant on 16.12.2021 for the next date, but despite that the trial Court decided the matter in the absence of the complainant without serving any notice on him in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of being heard.
4. Therefore, in the view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.12.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.III, Una, District Una, H.P., is quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the protest petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to him.
5. The petitioner as well as the State, through the Public Prosecutor, are directed the appear before the learned ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS 5 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.III, Una, District Una, .
H.P. on 14.08.2023. Record be sent back forthwith.
The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja )
June 22, 2023 Judge
(VH)
::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:33:44 :::CIS