Judgment

Sanjay Dhar, J.—Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the learned Municipal Mobile Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Judge), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in a complaint titled ‘Janak Raj Gupta vs. Ashwani Kumar and another’ whereby the evidence of the complainant, petitioner herein was closed and the complaint was fixed for arguments on framing of charge. Order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the said Court in the same complaint, whereby the statement of the accused under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C was directed to be recorded and order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the said Court, whereby a direction for production of defence evidence was issued, have also been called into question.

2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner had filed a complaint for offences under Sections 420/406/34 RPC before the trial Court against the respondents/accused. It is further averred that the learned trial Court vide its order dated 28.08.2001, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the respondents/accused and issued process against them, but the said order was called into question by the respondents/accused before this Court by way of a petition under Section 561-ACr.P.C bearing No. 88/2002. Vide order dated 15.02.2006 passed in the said petition, this Court quashed the order of summoning the respondents/accused to the extent of taking of cognizance of offence under Section 406 RPC, but maintained the criminal proceedings against the respondents before the trial Court for offences under Sections 420/34 RPC. It is further averred that part statement of the complainant was recorded on 10.01.2014, but the respondents/accused sought adjournment to cross-examine the petitioner/complainant and his cross-examination was deferred. It is also averred that despite the respondents/accused having failed to cross-examine the petitioner/complainant on a number of dates, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 02.03.2015 proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioner/complainant. Apart from this, it is contended that the petitioner/complainant had furnished a list of witnesses and deposited the diet expenses of the witnesses before the trial Court, but without making any effort to summon the witnesses of the petitioner/complainant, the trial Court passed the impugned order of closure of evidence of the complainant.

3. The respondents despite service did not choose to contest the present petition. The trial Court record has been summoned and the same stands received.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the grounds of challenge and the trial Court record.

5. A perusal of the trial Court record shows that upon receipt of the record by the trial Court, pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2006 passed by this Court in 561-A CrPC No. 88/2002, whereby criminal proceedings against the respondents/accused to the extent of taking of cognizance for offence under Section 406 RPC were quashed, the learned trial Court proceeded to issue process against the respondents/accused vide its order dated 21.09.2006. The minutes of proceedings reveal that on most of the dates of hearing, one or the other accused has remained absent before the trial Court. Ultimately, vide order dated 10.07.2012, respondent No.1/accused namely Ashwani Kumar was declared as absconder and general warrants of arrest were issued against him. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant was directed to produce his witnesses.

6. It appears from the minutes of proceedings that the statement of the complainant could not be recorded for quite some time either due to absence of the accused or his counsel. It is further revealed from the record that on 10.01.2014, examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded and his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the respondents/accused. The minutes of proceedings go on to show that thereafter the complainant has con