IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance must be exercised judiciously, ensuring the complainant is given a fair opportunity to present their case.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand. J.

This criminal appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. challenges the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) Cases, No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer in Criminal Case No.1336/21 by which the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has been dismissed for want of prosecution under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and the accused-respondents (hereinafter referred as "the respondents") have been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "Act of 1881").

2. Counsel for the complainant submits that a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was submitted by the complainant against the respondents initially before the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.3, Jaipur Metro and the same remained pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metro-I for a considerable time since 2013 till 2021. Counsel submits that almost on each and every occasion, counsel for the complainant appeared before the Court concerned and thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) Cases, No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-Ist, Headquarter Sanganer by the orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metro-I. Counsel submits that after transfer of the aforesaid complaint, the complainant could not appear before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate on 2-3 occasions. Counsel submits that even the accused were not putting their appearance before the concerned Court and their arrest warrants were issued on 27.01.2022. Counsel submits that on account of absence of the complainant and his counsel on 05.04.2022, the complaint was dismissed in default and the respondents were acquitted, in terms of the mandate contained under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that absence of the complainant was bonafide, therefore, the order dated 05.04.2022 be recalled and the complaint be restored to its original number.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the complainant and submitted that even on 2-3 dates prior to passing of the impugned order dated 05.04.2022, the complainant failed to appear before the trial Court, hence the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the complaint for want of prosecution. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the criminal complaint for non-appearance of the complainant at the stage where the accused were summoned through warrants and the case was transferred from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.17, Jaipur Metro-I, Sanganer to the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metro-I, Headquarter Sanganer without any intimation to the complainant.

6. In order to appropriately address the above issue, it would be apposite to mention a brief sketch of the facts giving rise to this appeal.

7. The respondents issued three cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the complainant on different dates. When the complainant presented the said cheques before his bank, the same were dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The complainant sent a legal notice to the respondents for payment of the amount mentioned in the said cheques. When, neither the amount was returned nor any reply to the above notice was given, the complainant submitted a criminal complaint No.247/2013 under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against them before the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 04.04.2013 and cognizance was taken against the respondents under Section 13