Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 147

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AVNISH SAXENA, J.
Gopal Prasad Sharma – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. 15862 of 2024 Along with Application U/s 482 No. 12590 of 2024, Application U/s 482 No. 12625 of 2024, Application U/s 482 No. 13016 of 2024, Application U/s 482 No. 12953 of 2024, Application U/s 482 No. 12548 of 2024, Application U/s 482 No. 12968 of 2024, Application U/s 482 No. 12094 of 2024, Application U/s 482 No. 13020 of 2024
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rajesh Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent: G.A.

Acquittal under Section 256 CrPC requires the presence of the complainant; absent this and with no evidence against the accused, dismissal cannot transition to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 256 and 482 - Application for speedy disposal of a complaint filed for dishonor of cheques - Multiple complaints have been filed against the same accused for dishonor of cheques, leading to lengthy delays in trial - The Magistrate erroneously dismissed the complaints on non-appearance of the complainant and acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC, despite the complainant's consistent attempts to proceed - The court emphasizes the necessity of the complainant's presence in such cases and discusses the requirements for invoking Section 256, stating it cannot be applied in absence of the accused - The High Court reviews the merits of the revisional court’s decision to set aside the Magistrate's acquittal, asserting the need for compliance with procedural safeguards under the CrPC. (Paras 1-64)

(B) Acquittal - The court reiterates that acquittal cannot be recorded when the accused has consistently failed to appear and emphasizes the misuse of Section 256 CrPC - It clarifies the difference between total absence of a complainant leading to dismissal and requirements under the law for proper acquittal. (Paras 49-60)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

Case Overview * The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed eight applications filed by the accused (Rai Anoop Prasad) under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the order of a revisional court that had set aside an acquittal. * The Court allowed the application filed by the complainant (Gopal Prasad Sharma) under Section 482 CrPC, directing the trial court to expedite the disposal of the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. * The core issue was the legality of the Magistrate's order acquitting the accused under Section 256 CrPC when the accused had consistently failed to appear in court for trial.

Facts of the Case * The complainant filed eight complaints in 2012 regarding the dishonor of eight cheques issued by the accused to repay an advance of Rs. 30,00,000/- for a flat purchase deal that failed. * The Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses on 25.02.2012 and issued summons. * Despite continuous issuance of summons (from 2012 to 2014), bailable warrants, and non-bailable warrants, the accused never appeared in court. * On 29.09.2014, the Magistrate dismissed the complaints and acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC solely due to the non-appearance of the complainant on that specific date, noting the complainant was absent. * The complainant challenged this acquittal in revision before the Sessions Court, which set aside the Magistrate's order and directed disposal on merits. * The accused then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the revisional order, arguing that revision was not the proper remedy and that the summoning order was invalid because the cheques were allegedly issued by a company.

Legal Analysis & Key Findings * Invalidity of Acquittal under Section 256 CrPC: The Court held that Section 256 CrPC applies to cases where the accused is before the court. Since the accused never appeared, the trial under Chapter XX of CrPC (Sections 251-259) could not commence. Therefore, an order of acquittal under Section 256 cannot be passed when the accused is absent and the trial has not begun. (!) (!) (!) * Requirement of Complainant's Presence: While the presence of the complainant is essential for acquittal under Section 256 CrPC, the absence of the accused prevents the trial from starting in the first place. The Magistrate erred in treating the complainant's absence as grounds for acquittal without the accused facing the trial. (!) (!) (!) * Proper Remedy (Revision vs. Appeal): The Court clarified that since the accused never appeared to face trial, no evidence was adduced post-cognizance. Consequently, the proper remedy for the complainant was to file a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC to correct the illegal acquittal, rather than seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC, which is designed for appeals against acquittals after a trial on merits. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Abuse of Process: The Court characterized the Magistrate's order acquitting an absent accused as an abuse of the process of law and an erroneous exercise of discretion. The accused's conduct of ignoring warrants for over a decade was deemed an attempt to delay justice. (!) (!) * Rejection of Company Defense: The Court rejected the accused's argument that the summons were invalid because the cheques were issued by a company. The complaint clearly established a personal transaction between the parties, and the accused's refusal to return money was personal, making Section 141 of the NI Act inapplicable. (!) (!)

Final Order * The eight applications under Section 482 CrPC filed by the accused were dismissed. * The accused was directed to pay a cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days. * The application filed by the complainant was allowed, directing the trial Magistrate to speed up the trial of all eight cases in accordance with Supreme Court directions for expeditious disposal of Section 138 NI Act cases. (!)

Table of Content
1. record of complaints and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the legality of acquittal. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
3. court's analysis on procedural law related to acquittal. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
4. final dismissal of applications and directions for trial expedite. (Para 63)

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. This leading case alongwith the connected cases has been taken by this court on being nominated by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 29.11.2025.

2. The leading case in this bunch is an application under Section 482 CrPC filed by the complainant (Gopal Prasad Sharma) against the accused opposite party no.2 (Ram Anoop Prasad @ Rai Anoop Prasad) for seeking direction of this Court to direct the speedy disposal of complaint filed twelve years back by the complainant for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, P.S. Shahganj, District Agra. This application is particularly moved to seek direction in Complaint Case No. 74 of 2012 ( Gopal Prasad Sharma Vs. Ram Anoop Prasad @ Rai Anoop Prasad ), though there are seven other complaints between the same parties arose out of same transaction. Before dealing with the issue, the crux of the matter in all the cases having genesis from the single incident needs to be mentioned.

3. Connected with the above application are eight other applications filed by accused/applicant (Ram Anoop Prasad @ Rai Anoop Prasad), against Gopal Prasad Sharma (complainant) to assail, primarily, the orders allowing the criminal revisions filed by the complainant against the accused/applicant for quashing the orders of the trial Magistrate acquitting the accused/applicant invoking Section 256 CrPC and alternatively, the summoning orders dated 25.02.2012 passed by the Magistrate, summoning the accused/applicant for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

For the sake of brevity, comprehensiveness and clarity in the judgement the words used to represent the applicant and opposite party no.2, is taken as ‘complainant’, who has filed the case and ‘accused’, who is summoned in complaint; whereas, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will be referred as ‘NI Act’ and The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as ‘CrPC’.

4. Heard, Sri Sushil Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravitendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for accused; Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for complainant; and Sri Raj Shekhar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

5. The complaint has filed eight complaints in the year 2012 against the accused for offence under Section 138 NI Act before the Magistrate at Agra with alleged averments that the complainant and the accused were having close and cordial relations. In the last week of June 2011, the accused came to complainant’s house at Shahganj, Agra and asked for some money and also insisted the complainant to purchase his flat situated at Ghaziabad for a consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/-. The complainant accepted the offer and in the first week of July, 2011, he gave Rs. 30,00,000/- as advance to the accused, in presence of three persons, whose names have been disclosed in the complaint. It was agreed between the parties that the remaining amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- would be made good at the time of execution of sale deed. Somehow the deal could not be materialized and the accused has offered to return the advanced money, which was accepted by the complainant. The accused thereafter returned Rs. 30,00,000/- through eight cheques. Four cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/- each and four cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. All these cheques were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and led to eight criminal complaints.

6. In all the eight complaints the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused for offence under Section 138 NI Act and issued the summons to the accused. For continuous period of two yea