In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to-day proceedings to curb delay.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been directed against the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the evidence of the petitioner(complainant before the learned Trial Court) was closed by the order of the court. (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 petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act).

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reason to summon the accused and ordered the issuance of a summons.

4. The matter was listed for the complainant’s evidence on 10.03.2025 and was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the complainant for 03.06.2025. The complainant is an aged person and he is suffering from various ailments. He filed his affidavit, but could not appear for cross- examination. The learned Trial Court closed the evidence by the order of the Court without appreciating that the complainant is an aged person. He was pursuing his case diligently and could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to illness on 10.3.2025 and 03.06.2025. The accused has a legal liability of Rs.40,00,000/-, and the complainant would be deprived of his hard-earned money by the order passed by the Court. The complainant has a very good case in his favour. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the complainant could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to his old age and ailment. Procedure is a handmaiden of justice, and the complainant would be deprived of his hard-earned money if the order is not set aside. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

6. I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. A perusal of the certified copies of the ordersheet maintained by the learned Trial Court shows that the matter was listed for the cross-examination of the complainant for the first time on 26.12.2022. The matter was taken on 15.03.2023, and was adjourned for cross-examination of the complainant. An application under Section 220 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 08.06.2023, which was ultimately disposed of on 04.12.2024. The matter was adjourned for the complainant’s evidence on 10.03.2025, and it was made clear that it would be the only opportunity for the complainant to adduce the evidence. None of the complainant’s witnesses appeared on 10.03.2025, and the matter was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the complainant for 03.06.2025 as an exceptional last opportunity. It was also made clear that in case of failure to produce the evidence, the opportunity to examine the witnesses would be closed by the order of the Court. No witness appeared on 03.06.2025, and learned Trial Court closed the evidence by order of the Court.

8. Certified copies of the order-sheets also show that the complainant did not appear before the Court after 08.06.2023. He was represented by his counsel. Learned Trial Court was conducting the summons trial, and Section 256 of Cr.P.C. obliged the complainant to appear on every date of hearing