Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner could not get an opportunity to place his defence before the court below and the case is listed for arguments. Thus, there is probability of his getting convicted unnecessarily. Furthermore, the grounds which can be taken before the Trial Court would not be allowed in the appeal.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 11.07.2017 and he appeared on 12.03.2018, thereon, bail was granted and at joint request, the matter was referred to mediation. However, mediation failed. Thereafter, on 30.07.2018, notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed. Had the petitioner been aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2018, he would have challenged the same before the appropriate forum, however, he failed to do so. Thereafter, on 18.09.2018, CE was dispensed with and the case was listed for defence evidence on 11.12.2018. But the petitioner failed to lead defence evidence. Consequently, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner with cost of ₹5,000/- and thereafter the matter was fixed for 28.02.2019. However, on the said date, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was fixed for 07.05.2019. Even on the said date, the petitioner failed to place on record his defence evidence. Therefore, finding no alternative, learned Trial Court closed the DE and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 05.08.2019.

17. The fact remains that on 12.03.2018, the matter was referred to mediation and thereafter on 30.07.2018, the order was passed by the Trial Court on two counts (i) Framing of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. and (ii) listing on 18.09.2018 on maintainability of the complaint. Once notice is framed under section 251 Cr.P.C., the matter shall be decided after recording the evidence of both the parties. Had the Trial Court been of the view that there was some issue relating to maintainability, the Trial Court would not have framed the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. on 30.07.2018.

18. Be that as it may, since the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 30.07.2018, that order attained finality. However, vide the present petition, order dated 05.08.2019 is under challenge, whereby, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. and fixed the matter for final hearing.

19. It is not in dispute that after framing of notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., the complainant's evidence was dispensed with. Thus, the petitioner could not get a chance to cross examine the respondent. He moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed. Thus, there is no defence on record from the side of the petitioner. In that eventuality, if there is no defence of the petitioner, the Trial Court has no option but to convict the petitioner.