1) if the complainant does not come to court then prosecution would not be able to prove the case

2) the prosecution needs witnesses to prove their case

3) contest the case on merits

4) burden of proof is upon prosecution that you were driving rashly

5) Section 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way:

"Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE

Punishment—Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both

The offence is Cognizable—Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

6) 337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Under section 337 driving rashly and endangering life and safety is punishable

It is compoundable offence

Magistrate would not dismiss the case merely because complainant is absent

The provisions for the non-appearance of the complainant are laid down under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which says -

If the complainant does not appear in the court then the Magistrate can acquit the accused.

However, there are two constraints imposed on the court for exercising this power of acquittal. First, if the court thinks that in that particular situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing then the accused is not acquitted.

Second, if the magistrate considers that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary then the Magistrate may dispense with the attendance and proceed with the case.

Mam if witnesses are not attending the court, then it is in your favour... Why are you calling and asking them to join the trial.. Don't try and settle with money with colonel as he is not the complaint.. Moreover they have not filed any case for compensation.. Instead of settling with them put favour on public prosecutor through your lawyer.. It is the court who call witnesses through summons.. You by yourself creating a problem by calling them before the court..if Complainat do not appear and give a statement before court, then there is no case.. Court will have to acquit you(set you free)..for detailed consultation kindly contact me in person throug phone

Hello,

If he does not come to the court then the judge may decide the case in absence of him, also if he is ready for the settlement you can go through the same and after you to arrive at some mutual settlement amount then that can be informed to the court.

Regards

In the criminal case, the complainant (i.e. defacto) need not attend the court until he is summoned for deposing evidence as a witness.

For that still time is there.

If the defacto complainant is not at all turning up before court then you may ask the court to set him ex-parte and dispose the case as necessary.

If he does not come to court, can judge take a call on the same. ?

You can put pressure on the court to dispose the case without the witness deposition of the person who is not attending the court even receipts of summons.