The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for issue of proclamation under sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. and stopping further proceedings under sec. 258 of Cr.P.C. in a case based on a complaint filed under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

1. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.

2. The appellant, who is the complainant in C.C.No.34/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, filed a private complaint under sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ("N.I. Act" for short) against the respondent/accused contending that it is a registered company manufacturing crystal sugar. During harvesting season, labourers are employed for harvesting sugarcane grown in the cultivators land. The complainant has alleged that the accused offered to supply labourers for harvesting sugarcane and complainant-company paid Rs.14,00,000.00, Rs.11,50,000.00, Rs.11,50,000.00 and Rs.6,520.00 i.e. in all Rs.37,06,520.00 to the complainant by way of advance. Though accused supplied labourers to the tune of Rs.30,96,035.00 and thereafter abruptly the labourers left. When the complainant demanded accused to return the balance amount, he issued a cheque dtd. 12/11/2014 for an amount of Rs.8,36,585.00. It is further alleged that on 14/11/2014 when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it returned dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds".

3. After complying with the legal formalities, complaint came to be filed in PCR No.19/2015 for the offence punishable under sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. After recording sworn statement, the Trial Court has taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C.No.34/2016 and issued summons to the accused and it is duly served. Since the accused failed to appear before the Trial Court, non-bailable warrant came to be issued through local police and also through the Superintendent of Police, Beed District, Maharashtra State. As the concerned police were not able to secure the presence of accused, complainant filed application under Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to issue proclamation. On 12/4/2019, the application came for consideration. However, without issuing proclamation, arbitrarily, the Trial Court has dismissed the application and also proceeded to close the proceedings under Sec. 258 of Cr.P.C., by observing that the presence of accused not secured is since last three years.

4. Since the accused has remained absent before the Trial Court and inspite of taking several steps, his presence could not be secured, issuance of notice to the respondent-accused in the present case is dispensed with.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that when the accused intentionally evaded the process of the Court, as provided under Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C., the complainant is required to get a proclamation issued and proceed further in accordance with law. However, instead of granting prayer for proclamation, the Trial Court has abruptly closed the proceedings under Sec. 258 of Cr.P.C. The failure to secure the presence of the accused is not on account of negligence on the part of the complainant, but the concerned police have failed to discharge their responsibility, for which the complainant cannot be punished. The abscondance of accused despite initiation of coercive steps is not a ground to invoke provisions of Sec. 258 of Cr.P.C. and prays to allow the petition restoring the case to the file and direct the Trial Court to proceed with the matter.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

7. The complainant has challenged the impugned order dtd. 12/4/2019 stopping further proceedings under sec. 258 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that inspite of he filing application seeking issue of proclamation against the accused, the Trial Court without any justification has closed the further proceedings.

8. As evident from the order sheet, in spite of complainant taking steps for issue of summons and thereafter also for issue of non-bailable warrants against the accused, they are not executed and consequently in spite of the matter pending since 2016, the presence of the accused could