Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO
Mahendra Balkrishna Vyas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant lent money (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. evidence of the applicant (Para 3) |
| 3. applicant's evidence not considered (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. respondent's submission (Para 6) |
| 5. observations by the hon'ble apex court (Para 7) |
| 6. magistrate's discretion (Para 8) |
| 7. improper dismissal of case (Para 9) |
ORDER :
2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present application are as under:
2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and his plea was recorded at Exh.06 and the evidence of the applicant was taken on record. The applicant filed the closing purshis at Exh.20 and the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. The accused filed an application at Exh.21 to send the cheque to the FSL, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court by an order dated 05.07.2022 and the accused was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs before the learned Trial Court, which was deposited by the accused on 02.08.2022. The report of the FSL was not received and a reminder was also sent to the FSL but, the learned Trial Court passed an order on 29.05.2024 and dismissed the case of the appli
The court emphasized that acquittal under Section 256 of the Code should not occur solely due to the complainant's absence when evidence is on record, highlighting the need for judicial discretion.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of exercising judicial discretion and considering the potential adverse consequences for the complainant in dismissing complaints ....
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.
Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. requires due consideration of evidence on record, and non-appearance of the complainant should not automatically result in acquittal.
The court upheld the dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution, emphasizing the need for timely justice and the consequences of a complainant's repeated absence.
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 discretion under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.
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
