2025:HHC:32440 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 850 of 2024 Reserved on  :  08.09.2025 Decided on   :  18.09.2025 Sanatan Dharam Prabandhak Committee, Sanjauli Shimla, H.P. …Petitioner Versus Ravi Chaudhary …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr.   Shakti   Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Virender Singh, Judge The   petitioner   Sanatan   Dharam   Prabandhak Committee, Sanjauli, Shimla, H.P. through its President Sh.   Ashwani   Sood,   has   preferred   the   present   Criminal Revision against the order dated 26.06.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:32440 5, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Criminal Case No. 02 of 2019, titled   as   ‘Sanatan   Dharam   Prabandhak   Committee, Sanjauli, Shimla Vs Ravi Chaudhary’. 2. Vide   the   said   order   dated   26.06.2024,   the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent Ravi Chaudhary, has been ordered to be dismissed, for want of prosecution   and   the   respondent   was   ordered   to   be acquitted. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present   Criminal   Revision,   are   referred   to,   in   the   same manner, in which they were referred to, before the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present Criminal   Revision,   as   borne   out   from   the   record   are summed up, as under:­ 4.1 The   complainant­Committee   has   filed   a complaint under Section 199 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,   against   accused   Ravi   Chaudhary,   for   the commission of offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code. 3 2025:HHC:32440 4.2 After   recording   the   preliminary   evidence,   the learned   trial   Court   found   sufficient   grounds   to   proceed against the accused, as such, the summoning orders were passed on 04.06.2019. 4.3 After securing the presence of the accused, the learned trial Court has put the Notice of Accusation to the accused for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 25.08.2022.  When notice of accusation was put to the accused, he has not pleaded the guilt and claimed to be tried. 4.4 Consequently,   the   complainant   has   been directed to adduce evidence. 4.5 Thereafter, number of opportunities were given to   the   complainant   to   lead   evidence,   however,   the complainant could not examine its evidence, in order to substantiate   its   complaint   against   the   accused. Consequently, on 26.06.2024, the learned trial Court has passed   the   order,   dismissing   the   complaint   for   want   of prosecution. 4 2025:HHC:32440 5. Aggrieved   from   the   said   order,   the   present Criminal   Revision   has   been   filed   before   this   Court, assailing the order passed by the learned trial Court, on the   ground   that   Sh.   Ashwani   Sood,   President   of complainant­Committee, through whom, the complainant is pursuing its complaint, is a chronic patient of diabetes and due to this fact, he could not appear on 14.03.2024. Thereafter, the complainant was further directed to adduce evidence on 07.05.2024, that too at the cost of Rs. 500/­. However,   due   to   the   ailment   of   Sh.   Ashwani   Sood,   no evidence could be examined before the learned trial Court. 6. In  nutshell,  the  order  dated  26.06.2024,  has been   assailed   on   the   ground   that   Sh.   Ashwani   Sood, President   of   the   complainant­Committee,   was   suffering from various ailments and he was advised complete bed­ rest. As such, the order by virtue of which the complaint has been dismissed for non prosecution has been sought to be set aside. 7. Perusal of the record shows that the Notice of Accusation was put to the accused on 25.08.2022, and the order dismissing the complaint was passed by the learned 5 2025:HHC:32440 trial Court on 26.06.2024.   Meaning thereby, almost for two   years,   the   case   remained   listed   for   recording   the statements of complainant’s witnesses. 8. Perusal of the record shows that on 25.08.2022, when   complainant   was   directed   to   adduce   its   evidence, then, direction was issued to the complainant to take steps within a period of seven days and as per the report made by the concerned Criminal Ahlmad, the steps had not been taken.  Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 10.10.2022. On that day, no evidence was adduced and again matter was adjourned for 22.11.2022, by giving the complainant liberty to take steps within seven days.  Again, steps had not been taken.   Similarly, on 22.11.2022, neither steps were taken, nor any witness had been examined. 9. Admittedly,   steps   were   not   taken   till 26.06.2024, when the complaint was dismissed for non prosecution.     Almost   eight   effective   opportunities   have been given to the complainant to examine its witnesses, including the last opportunity, which was given, subject to cost of Rs. 500/­. 6 2025:HHC:32440 10. In   such   situation,   the   alleged   ailment   of   Sh. Ashwani   Sood,   is   too   short   to   grant   any   relief   to   the complainant,   as   any   other   member   of   the   complainant society could have been authorized to depose on behalf of the complainant, in case complainant Sh. Ashwani Sood, was   unable   to   appear   in   the   witness   box,   due   to   his ailment. 11. Considering this fact, this Court is of the view that complainant is not entitled for any relief, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction, where scope of interference is limited. 12. Consequently, the Criminal Revision sans merit and the same is dismissed. 13. Send down the record. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 18th September, 2025 (Pramod)