Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Raman Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Puran Chand – Respondent
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 03.07.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed under Section 256 of CrPC. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. The matter was listed on 03.07.2023 when the accused was present but the complainant was not present despite having been served by way of notice. Hence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution.
3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal asserting that he used to appear before the Court on each and every d
The dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 of CrPC is improper if the complainant's presence is not necessary for the proceeding, particularly when prosecution evidence has been led.
Straightway dismissal of Section 138 complaint on single non-appearance unjustified; courts must exercise Section 256 Cr.P.C. discretion judicially, adjourning or dispensing attendance to ensure just....
The discretion to dismiss a complaint for non-prosecution under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised judiciously, and the presence of the complainant should be deemed nec....
A trial court must provide reasons for dismissing a complaint due to the complainant's absence, exercising discretion under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. to avoid unjust hardship to the accused.
Magistrate is not justified in straight away dismissing complaint(s) and ordering acquittal of accused on mere non-appearance of complainant.
The importance of the complainant's personal attendance for the progress of the case and the discretion of the Magistrate to adjourn the hearing or dismiss the complaint.
The trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
A single absence of the complainant should not lead to dismissal of a complaint, as it may result in failure of justice.
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
