Back
S. M. MODAK
Shineshilpi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Vimal Prakashjain – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant-complainant and learned Advocate for Respondent No.1-accused.
2. The core issue involved in this appeal is whether the Trial Court was justified in exercising the discretion under the provisions of Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the complainant has not remained present on two dates at the stage of recording the evidence.
3. The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Mumbai as per order dtd. 17/9/2022, was pleased to dismiss the complaint for non appearance of the complainant by taking recourse to the provisions of Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant intends to prefer an Appeal, that's why leave is sought. If the leave is granted, the Appeal will be admitted. If the leave is refused, the Appeal will not be admitted. The complaint was dismissed at pre-trial stage. So the issue can be decided only on the basis of the documents which are filed before this Court.
4. It is true that for deciding the issue of grant of leave this Court is required to go through the documents, so also these documents needs to be perused, if at the Appeal is to be heard after admission. So this Court is req
The court established that dismissal of a complaint under Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires careful consideration of the circumstances, and that a complainant's absence on a limited....
A single absence of the complainant should not lead to dismissal of a complaint, as it may result in failure of justice.
The trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
Magistrate is not justified in straight away dismissing complaint(s) and ordering acquittal of accused on mere non-appearance of complainant.
The absence of a complainant's advocate does not justify automatic dismissal of a case if evidence is on record and the accused is avoiding service.
The court emphasized that a complaint should not be dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant if represented by counsel, allowing for adjournment under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
The court held dismissal of a criminal complaint for absence of the complainant is improper if evidence exists and representation is made, emphasizing the necessity for discretion under Section 256 o....
The main legal point established is the discretion of the court to adjourn the hearing and the emphasis on deciding cases on merits with a judicial approach rather than dismissing them for default.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
