1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code (for short hereinafter, Cr.P.C.) for quashing the entire proceedings drawn in the complaint titled as M/S Chenab Textile Mills v. Ramesh Pandey, on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.

2. Respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the commission of offence punishable under sections 406 & 408 of Ranbir Penal Code (for short hereinafter, RPC). Cognizance came to be drawn and process issued against the accused for the commission of offence under sections 406 and 408 RPC vide order dated 5.5.2007. Petitioner/accused appeared and came to be admitted to bail vide order dated 20.7.2007. Complainant/respondent herein was asked to lead evidence in support of the complaint, examined Sh. J. K. Nirmal, through whom complaint came to be filed, vide order dated 10.3.2008. The evidence of the complainant came to be closed vide order dated 18.3.2009. Complainant filed an application for allowing to produce witnesses namely T.P. Singh, mentioned in the list of witnesses and another namely Sabu Joseph on 29.4.2009. Petitioner/accused filed objections on 6.5.2009, came to be rejected vide order dated 26.8.2009. Thereafter accused filed an application for discharge, came to be rejected vide order dated 2.4.2010.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that complainant has not appended the list of witnesses with the complaint in terms of section 204(1-a) Cr.P.C., therefore, the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and abuse of process of law. Further he argued that the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected illegally for the reason that there was no evidence which could be made basis for framing charge against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under section 408 RPC.

4. Both the arguments are devoid of force for the following reasons.

5. As discussed hereinabove, complaint came to be filed in the year 2007, cognizance and process came to be issued on 5.5.2007, accused appeared and contested the complaint. The complainant has given the list of witnesses and the name of witness given in the complaint is Mr. T. P. Singh. Thus it cannot be said that the complainant has not complied with the mandate of section 204(1-a) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise the petitioner has contested the complaint right from his appearance till passing of order of charge dated 2.4.2010. Thus it cannot be said that it has caused any prejudice to the petitioner/accused.

6. Complainant has moved an application for examining T.P. Singh, the listed witnesses and also one Suba Joseph. The trial court vide order dated 26.8.2009 has declined to allow the complainant to examine the said witness. Least said is better because that order is not the subject matter at this stage. However, it is apt to mention herein that it is not mandatory that there should be more than one witness in the list of witnesses. There may be a case where there is only one witness or complainant is the lone witness. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the judgment in case Pramila Mahesh Shah v. Employees State Insurance Corpn., 2002 Cr.L.J. 2454:

"10. In Chaturbhuj v. Naharkhan (1958 Cri. L.J. 50) (Madh Pra) (supra), while dealing with Section 204(1-A) and (1-B) (as amended in 1955) of Criminal Procedure Code 1898, it has been held that having regard to the wordings of Section 204, Clauses (1-A) and (1-B), it is clear that filing of the list of prosecution witnesses is essential unless the complaint is the only witness in the case. It is also pointed out therein that it appears that along with summons or warrant issued under Sub-section (1), copy of the complaint ought to be sent to the accused. It appears that in this case, the Magistrate had not considered the said provisions as amended in 1955 and as such the Magistrate was directed to comply with provisions of Section 204(1-A) and (1-B) and after applying his mind to the same, proceeded with the tr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document