IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P. NO.14/2017 BETWEEN AYUB PASHA S/O LATE NAWAB JAN, AGE 44 YEARS, NO.6, 9TH CROSS, NEAR MYSORE SAW MILL KUSHAL NAGAR, K.G.HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI YOUNOUS ALI KHAN, ADV.) AND 1. AHMED MAJOR, C/O DR. SUHAIL CLINIC NO.166, CHICK BAZAAR ROAD NEAR SHIVAJI NAGAR BUS STAND AND BANGALORE PILES CLINIC SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560051.
2. DR. SUHAIL BAIG MAJOR NO.166, CHICK BAZAAR ROAD, NEAR SHIVAJI NAGAR BUS STAND AND BANGALORE PILES CLINIC SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560051.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M P VISHWANATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.09.2016 PASSED BY THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BANGALORE IN PCR NO.50382/2013.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2016 passed by the Court of XI ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in P.C.R. No.50382/2013.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that a complaint was referred to the Shivjinagar police station and the respondent police filed a ‘B’ report on 19.09.2013 and notice to the complainant came to be issued and hearing was fixed on 01.01.2014. That the petitioner filed his objection to the ‘B’ report and the hearing was adjourned to 26.04.2014. That subsequently, the hearing of the case came to be adjourned to various dates and that finally on 18.04.2015, the petitioner-
complainant filed his written arguments and hearing was adjourned to 09.07.2015. That on 09.07.2015 cognizance was taken and hearing was adjourned to 15.12.2015 for recording the statement of the complainant. That on 15.12.2015 the hearing came to be adjourned to 23.05.2016 and on the said date the statement of the petitioner- complainant came to be recorded and hearing was adjourned to 02.08.2016 and again to 03.09.2016. That on 03.09.2016 neither the petitioner nor his counsel were before the court. The court taking note of the same, was pleased to dismiss the complaint on account of there being no representation on behalf of the complainant.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been diligently appearing before the court and the court below erred in exercising the discretion and the court having taken cognizance could not have dismissed the complaint in such a manner causing injustice and that the court ought to have taken to the proceedings to its logical end by providing opportunity to the complainant.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that the order sheet reveals that the complainant has been diligently prosecuting the case before the trial court. On perusal of the order sheet it is seen that the complainant has been diligently appearing before the court and prosecuting the complaint in all earnestness. It would not be out of place to refer to the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUEIRA FERNANDES & OTHERS VS ERASMO JACK DE SEQUEIRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. – (2012) 5 SCC 370, wherein the Apex Court has held Truth as guiding star in the judicial process. In paragraphs 32 & 33, the Apex Court has held as under:
“32. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court’s serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies.
33. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth.”
6. The object of the courts and justice dispensation system is to ferret out the truth and render justice to the parties and instant approach adopted by the trial court cannot be appreciated. The court could have given one more opportunity to the complainant to put in appearance and continue the prosecution.
7. In that view of the matter, the ends of justice requires and the interest of justice requires that the order under challenge be intervened with. Accordingly, the order is set-aside. The case is restored to the file of XI ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore.
The complainant to appear before the trial court on 25.10.2019.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE