V. K. Bhat vs G. Ravi Kishore - 2016 Supreme(SC) 1019

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1019

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROY
V. K. Bhat – Appellant
Versus
G. Ravi Kishore – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P., Arun Devdas, Sudha Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, D. Mahesh Babu, Jayant Muthraj, Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Seema Jain and Himinder Lal, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Yes, the dismissal of a complaint due to the non-appearance of the complainant under Section 256 CrPC constitutes an acquittal of the accused [1000587910004][1000587910005][1000587910007]. In such circumstances, the complainant does not have the remedy of a revision petition (including a second revision), as it is barred where an appeal lies but has not been pursued [1000587910004][1000587910005][1000587910007]. Instead, the proper remedy for the complainant is an appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(4) CrPC [1000587910004][1000587910005].

ORDER :

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No. 186 of 2011, whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case filed by the appellant herein.

4. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:-

(a) The appellant and the respondents are businessmen. They had monetary transactions and it appears that a Cheque bearing No. 482572 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad, for Rs.4,32,00,000/- was issued in favour of the respondent-complainant. The said cheque was dishonored on presentation with an endorsement "insufficiency of funds". The respondent filed a complaint following the procedures provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the said Act. After service of summons, it appears that the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately on 13.4.2010, the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the respondent-complainant was absent. The respondent-complainant approached the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and filed a revision, w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 1019

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROYV. K. Bhat – AppellantVersusG. Ravi Kishore – Respondent

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, AMITAVA ROY
V. K. Bhat – Appellant
Versus
G. Ravi Kishore – Respondent