Back
MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN
Mohit Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.
Heard Shri. Udai Bhan Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, Shri. Ashid Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 as well as Shri. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant- Mohit Pandey against the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by Additional Judge, Court No.5, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 3453 of 2008 (Mohit Pandey v. Shikha Banerji), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed in default of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 25.11.2016, vehemently submits that the impugned order has been passed in utter disregard to the eventuality dealt with under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and no reasons has been given in the impugned order as to why the presence of the complainant was required for the further progress of the case and by passing a cryptic order, the complaint of the complainant/appellant has been dismis
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.
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....
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 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.
Section 256 CrPC provides discretion to Magistrate either to acquit accused or to adjourn case for some other day, if he thinks it proper.
The discretion under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judicially and fairly, and the trial court should adjourn the case or issue a warrant/summons to the accused instead of immediately d....
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.
The absence of a complainant's advocate does not justify automatic dismissal of a case if evidence is on record and the accused is avoiding service.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of exercising judicial discretion and considering the potential adverse consequences for the complainant in dismissing complaints ....
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
