Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Manoj Kumar Pathania – Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.12.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby Criminal Complaint No. 667 of 2023, titled as Manoj Kumar Pathania Vs. Nirmala Devi , came to be dismissed in default for want of prosecution, appellant- complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 419(4) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and restore the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Sh. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant (in short “appellant”), is that on account of unavoidable circumstances, appellant/complainant was unable to produce his evidence on the given date and learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. Mr. Loveneesh, submitted that appellant was pursuing his case diligently and was appearing regularly, but on 26.12.2024, appellant could not appear before learned trial Court as he was ill and w
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....
Court cannot dismiss Section 138 complaint after closing complainant's evidence for non-production of witnesses; must adjudicate on merits using pleadings and documents, exercising Section 256 discre....
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.
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.
Section 256 CrPC provides discretion to Magistrate either to acquit accused or to adjourn case for some other day, if he thinks it proper.
Dismissal of a case for non-appearance of the complainant is inappropriate if there is evidence on record; courts must exercise discretion to ensure justice.
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.
Acquittal based solely on the complainant's absence is impermissible if evidence exists; courts must consider the merits of the case before dismissing for non-appearance.
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....
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
