Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Patel Milap Babubhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
1. The appellant has preferred present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr. P.C." for short) against the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 6162 of 2022, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Case for want of prosecution as the original complainant did not remain present under the provisions of Section 256(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is in the construction business for last many years and respondent no. 3 is into the electrical contract business in the name and style of the respondent no. 2 and as the respondents had done the work at one of the sites of the appellant, the respondent used to contact the appellant for financial help and considering the old relations shared with the respondent, the appellant used to help him.
2.1 Before filing of the complaint, the respondent was in need of financial help of Rs. 2,00,000/- for some work of temple and he promised to the appellant to return the same by September 2021. Relying upon the say of the respon
A single absence of the complainant should not lead to dismissal of a complaint, as it may result in failure of justice.
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 trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the necessity of a complainant's presence in cases governed by Section 256 of the CrPC and the inappropriate dismissal of cases where evidence has already been presented.
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 dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 for non-appearance is improper if evidence is recorded, emphasizing the need for trial on merits to avoid undue acquittal.
The trial court erred in dismissing a complaint for want of prosecution despite existing recorded evidence, violating procedural safeguards for the complainant's presence and representation.
A trial court's dismissal of a case for non-appearance must consider the presence of evidence, and acquittals should not be issued simply due to complainant absence when represented by counsel.
Absence of complainant does not automatically lead to dismissal of charges when evidence is on record, as per Section 256 of Cr.P.C.
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
