JOGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, filed a private complaint under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 379, 506, 323, 34 of the IPC. On 8-1-2003, as the petitioner did not appear, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint, for want of prosecution. The petitioner, preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the order dated 1-10-2003, on the ground that the revisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertan the revision.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence of the petitioner /complainant did not empower the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, for want of prosecution. The petitioner had concluded his pre-summoning evidence and, therefore, the learned trial Court was required to appraise the complaint and the evidence on record and thereafter proceed to dismiss the complaint in terms of Section 203 Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') or issue process in terms of Section 204 of the Code. It is contended that Chapter XV of the Code, prescribes the procedure to be followed, namely; at the pre-summoning stage. At this stage, the stattory provisions that govern the jurisdiction of a Magistrate, do not require the personal presence of a complainant and, therefore, do not confer any power upon Magistrate to dismiss a complaint for absence of a complainant. The personal presence of the complainant is required after summoning. The consequences of a complainant's absence are governed by Sections 249 and 256 of the Code. These provisions do not apply at the pre-summoning stage. It is. therefore, argued that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. It is also contended that as the learned trial Court had issued notices to secure the petitioner's presence and the last notice had not been received back, served or otherwise, the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, however, states that a complainant, is required to be present in person on each date, during the entire course of the complaint, whether at the pre-summoning or the post summoning stage. Sections 249 and 256 of the Code mandatorily require a complainant, to be present in person on any date fixed for hearing of the complaint. As the petitioner was absent for three consecutive dates, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.