IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Rajat Resorts, The Mall Shimla – Appellant
Versus
Reliable Hospitalities – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 07.07.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P, whereby the learned Court below while closing the evidence of the petitioner/complainant has further proceeded to dismiss the complainant for want of prosecution, petitioner/complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and restore the complaint No.280-B of 2020 titled M/s Rajat Resorts vs M/s Reliable Hospitalities.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Sh. Shakti Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant is that on account of unavoidable circumstances, petitioner/complainant was unable to produce his evidence on the given date and in that regard, plausible explanation was rendered on record but yet learned Court below proceeded to dismiss the complaint. Mr.Shakti Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that learned Court below taking note of previous adjournment
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....
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....
Magistrate is not justified in straight away dismissing complaint(s) and ordering acquittal of accused on mere non-appearance of complainant.
The legal point established is that the dismissal of a complaint for want of prosecution should be in accordance with the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C., and the court may proceed with the case if....
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.
A single absence of the complainant should not lead to dismissal of a complaint, as it may result in failure of justice.
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 trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.