Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of impugned order dated 27.2.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default for want of prosecution and the order dated 13.11.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar whereby the application for restoration of the said appeal has been dismissed and to restore the appeal to its original number.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant present petitioner on 22.11.2008, when he alongwith his brother after attending the court proceedings at District Courts, Mohali came out of the court premises and reached in the parking then at about 1.30 pm, one Amrinder Singh, his brother Gurvinder Singh alongwith seven other persons intercepted and started beatings them. Amrinder Singh gave fist blows on the left side of the head of the complainant, and his brother Gurvinder Singh also pulled his hair and gave leg blows on his back. They slapped on the mouth of his brother Manjit Singh and also gave leg blows on his back. When the complainant and his brother raised alarm, the passerby gathered at the spot and the accused–respondents fled away and threatened them with dire consequences. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR No.450 dated 22.11.2008 was registered under Sections 323 , 341, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station Phase-I, Mohali.

3. After investigation, the challan was presented and the accused-respondents were charge sheeted under Sections 323 , 341, 506, 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. After analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted of the charge framed against Ranjit Singh whereas accused–respondent No.1 Amrinder Singh and Parminder Singh were held guilty and convicted under Section 323 IPC. However, they were released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of like amount thereby undertaking to be of good conduct and to appear to receive the sentence as and when called by the Court during the period of six month.

5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the complainant-petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali. However, vide order dated 27.2.2017, the said appeal was dismissed in default for want of prosecution on account of the fact that despite the case having been called several times since the morning, neither the appellant nor anyone on his behalf had come present. The application filed for restoration of the said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar vide order dated 13.11.2019. Hence, the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 13.11.2019, whereby the aforesaid application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar on the ground that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. to restore the criminal appeal and the Court was not empowered to restore the criminal appeal, which was dismissed in default by the learned predecessor of the Court. He further submits that grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of non-decision of his case on merit, in view of the dismissal of the same for want of prosecution. He next argues that it is only on account of the reasons mentioned in the application for restoration that neither the appellant nor anyone else on his behalf had come present before the Court on 27.2.2017. However, he