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

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. (!)