Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO
Bank of Baroda Thro Mishra Vijay M. – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant filed complaint (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dismissal of complaint (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. appellant's advocate's submission (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. respondents' submission (Para 6) |
| 5. discussion on section 256 (Para 8) |
| 6. court's reasoning on dismissal (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 7. appeal allowed and remanded (Para 12) |
ORDER :
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned 5th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 10886 of 2020, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the criminal case for want of prosecution as the appellant did not remain present under the provisions of Section 256(3) of Cr.P.C. and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act”).
1.1 The notice in this matter was issued to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 at the same address of the respondent No. 2 mentioned in the original complaint and the no
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 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 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 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 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.
A trial court's dismissal of a case for non-appearance of the complainant is improper if prior testimony has been recorded and an advocate is representing the complainant.
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.
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
