127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kuldeep @ Kuldeep Rana The State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. for the HARPREET SINGH BRAR, 1. The present Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 impugned order dated Class, Karnal vide which the complaint bearing No. under Sections 323, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506 prosecution. 2. Brief, ago, the petitioner had purchased a motorcycle from accused consideration of Rs.22,000/ of ownership of the said vehicle to the petitioner. When the petitioner requested to transfer the same to him, he threatened to teach him a lesson. On 12.07.2017, Jitender and other accused came to the house of the petitioner and started beating him application dated 12.07.2017 against the accused, which further annoyed them. Consequently, on 15.07.2017, all the accused persons, armed with IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Kuldeep @ Kuldeep Rana V/S The State of Haryana HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist vide which the complaint bearing No. 323, 325, 307, 452, 504, 506/34 rief, the facts, as alleged, are that about one and a half years ago, the petitioner had purchased a motorcycle from accused consideration of Rs.22,000/-. However, Jitender kept postponing of ownership of the said vehicle to the petitioner. When the petitioner requested to transfer the same to him, he threatened to teach him a lesson. On 12.07.2017, Jitender and other accused came to the house of the petitioner and ing him and his wife namely Neelam. application dated 12.07.2017 against the accused, which further annoyed them. Consequently, on 15.07.2017, all the accused persons, armed with IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16597-2025 Date of decision: 21.04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR has been filed under Section 528 of the (for short ‘BNSS’) against passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist vide which the complaint bearing No.COMI-423-2017 filed IPC was dismissed for want of the facts, as alleged, are that about one and a half years ago, the petitioner had purchased a motorcycle from accused- Jitender for a . However, Jitender kept postponing the transfer of ownership of the said vehicle to the petitioner. When the petitioner requested to transfer the same to him, he threatened to teach him a lesson. On 12.07.2017, Jitender and other accused came to the house of the petitioner and and his wife namely Neelam. The petitioner moved an application dated 12.07.2017 against the accused, which further annoyed them. Consequently, on 15.07.2017, all the accused persons, armed with laathi MANISHA 2025.04.25 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-385-2025 and kassi, came to the house of the petitioner and his relative namely Ramesh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner went to Sushil Garg Hospital on 14.06.2024 where he was undergoing treatment for his eyes with any relief, he underwent cataract surgery discharge summary(Annexure P 26.07.2024 before the learned trial Court due to his medical condition. Now, the petitioner is medically fit and is capable of completing preliminary evidence. Moreover, CW learned trial Court has fallen into grave error causing serious loss to the petitioner by dismissing his complaint(sup same would amount to acquittal in terms of Section 256 of the Cr.P.C Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 205 of 2025) decided on 17.03.2025 Tandon alias Hari Nath Tandon 2009(1)R.C.R.(Criminal) 442 Bajaj vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh) and oth 4. Having the record with his able assistance, it transpires that the matter has been at the stage of preliminary evidence order does not reflect that the petitioner has been intentionally and continuously avoiding the proceedings of the Court. provided a genuine and 2025 2 , came to the house of the petitioner and caused and his relative namely Ramesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner went to Sushil Garg Hospital on 14.06.2024 where he was undergoing treatment for his eyes. Since the medic with any relief, he underwent cataract surgery on discharge summary(Annexure P-9). The petitioner only failed to appear on 26.07.2024 before the learned trial Court due to his medical condition. Now, etitioner is medically fit and is capable of completing preliminary evidence. Moreover, CW-Ramesh has already been examined. As such, the learned trial Court has fallen into grave error causing serious loss to the petitioner by dismissing his complaint(supra) for want of prosecution same would amount to acquittal in terms of Section 256 of the Cr.P.C n this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Sarkar vs. Ravi Ganesh Bharadwaj and others Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 205 of 2025) decided on 17.03.2025 and this Court in Tandon alias Hari Nath Tandon 2009(1)R.C.R.(Criminal) 442 Bajaj vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh) and others 2005(3)R.C.R.(criminal Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that the matter has been at the stage of preliminary evidence since the year 2007. order does not reflect that the petitioner has been intentionally and continuously avoiding the proceedings of the Court. genuine and reasonable explanation for seeking repeated and caused severe injuries to him Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the went to Sushil Garg Hospital on 14.06.2024 where he was Since the medication did not provide him on 21.11.2024, as evidenced by The petitioner only failed to appear on 26.07.2024 before the learned trial Court due to his medical condition. Now, etitioner is medically fit and is capable of completing preliminary Ramesh has already been examined. As such, the learned trial Court has fallen into grave error causing serious loss to the ra) for want of prosecution as the same would amount to acquittal in terms of Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. n this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Ranjit Sarkar vs. Ravi Ganesh Bharadwaj and others in Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 205 of and this Court in Purshotam Mantri vs. Vinod Tandon alias Hari Nath Tandon 2009(1)R.C.R.(Criminal) 442 and Jitender ers 2005(3)R.C.R.(criminal) 69. nsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that the matter has been at the since the year 2007. A perusal of the impugned order does not reflect that the petitioner has been intentionally and continuously avoiding the proceedings of the Court. The petitioner has reasonable explanation for seeking repeated MANISHA 2025.04.25 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-385-2025 adjournments in the present case with respect to his eyes. 5. The reliance Mantri(supra), as they pertain to summons trials, particularly Section Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is not applicable to the case at hand However, this Court is of the considered opinion that complaint(supra) for want of prosecution would be rather harsh as the petitioner only failed to a indicates that the reasons for absence have been questioned or disbelieved. Since there is no hard and fast rule guiding the recall of an order whereby a complaint has been dismissed in default, justice would be met if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to the proceedings before the learned Court below. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the following terms: i. The impugned order Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal ii. The learned trial Court is directed to the petitioner to conclude preliminary evidence a cost Karnal. iii. The complaint ( number at the stage from where it was dismissed by the learned trial 2025 3 adjournments in the present case as he had been undergoing medical with respect to his eyes. he reliance placed by the learned counsel on , Jitender Bajaj (supra) and Ranjit Sarkar(supra) as they pertain to summons trials, particularly Section Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is not applicable to the case at hand this Court is of the considered opinion that complaint(supra) for want of prosecution would be rather harsh as the petitioner only failed to appear due to medical reasons. Moreover, the nothing indicates that the reasons for absence have been questioned or disbelieved. Since there is no hard and fast rule guiding the recall of an order whereby a complaint has been dismissed in default, this Cour justice would be met if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to the proceedings before the learned Court below. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the following The impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, is set aside The learned trial Court is directed to petitioner to conclude preliminary evidence a cost of Rs.5,000/- with District Karnal. The complaint (supra) is ordered to be restored to its original number at the stage from where it was dismissed by the learned trial been undergoing medical treatment by the learned counsel on Purshotam Ranjit Sarkar(supra) is erroneous as they pertain to summons trials, particularly Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is not applicable to the case at hand. this Court is of the considered opinion that dismissing the complaint(supra) for want of prosecution would be rather harsh as the ppear due to medical reasons. Moreover, the nothing indicates that the reasons for absence have been questioned or disbelieved. Since there is no hard and fast rule guiding the recall of an order whereby a this Court believes that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to pursue the proceedings before the learned Court below. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the following 26.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial , is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to petitioner to conclude preliminary evidence, subject to depositing District Legal Services Authority, ) is ordered to be restored to its original number at the stage from where it was dismissed by the learned trial MANISHA 2025.04.25 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-A-385-2025 Court and the said Court is directed to proceed further law, after g 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21.04.2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2025 4 Court and the said Court is directed to proceed further after giving notice to the parties concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Court and the said Court is directed to proceed further strictly as per iving notice to the parties concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.25 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment