Decided on October 12,2007

KAPIL PASWAN Respondents


- (1.) The complaint of the complainant was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned order, since cost imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on previous date was not deposited by the complainant and the receipt was not filed along with process fee, so that the summons could be served upon the accused. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that several opportunities had been given to the complainant to take steps to get the accused served, but complainant had not complied with the order and did not take steps to serve the accused. He considered that complainant had been abusing the process of law and wasting precious time of the Court and dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. On 24th May 2007, when the complaint was dismissed neither the complainant nor the counsel had appeared, only proxy counsel for the complainant had appeared.
(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that his junior counsel, who was looking after the case had left his services. Since he was having many number of cases, he could not appear in each case personally. The cost imposed by the Court was paid on 24th May, 2007 and a receipt was shown to the Court. He submits that since the process fee was filed, the complaint should not have been dismissed for the reason that cost was not paid in time. Regarding not taking steps on earlier occasion for service of the accused, he stated that the earlier omission was sufficiently penalized by imposing cost by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the earlier occasion should not have weighed upon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for dismissing the complaint.
(3.) In many cases, complaints are filed and thereafter no steps are taken for service of the accused for considerable long time. It must be kept in mind that every time when a case is called and adjourned, precious time of the Court is wasted, which time could be utilized by the Court for trial of the other cases. When the Criminal Courts are so heavily burdened, wastage of few minutes on each unnecessary adjournment matters. Every complainant, who files a complaint is supposed to diligently pursue the complaint and cannot just ignore taking steps for service of the accused. If the steps are not taken for service of accused, a presumption can reasonably be drawn that the complaint was not interested in prosecuting.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.