Back
RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Amarjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. By the instant C482 application, applicant is challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Complaint Case No. 1324 of 2017 (Amarjeet Singh Vs. Rajwant Singh) whereby the complaint of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been rejected and accused / respondent no. 2 has been acquitted.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that applicant had given Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakh only) to respondent no. 2, who had promised him to return the same. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 had given three cheques pursuant to an agreement dated 04.10.20216 executed between the applicant and respondent no. 2. When applicant submitted cheques for the encashment in the Bank the same were dishonoured. Cheque bearing no. 710503 for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was dishonoured on 06.03.2017. Subsequently, a complaint no. 1324 of 2017 was filed, in which cognizance was taken and summons were issued to respondent no. 2 but respondent no. 2 did not appear, consequently, bailable warrant followed by non bailable warrant were issued and subsequently, p
Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be used to acquit an accused when warrants have been issued, ensuring protection for complainants pursuing legitimate claims.
Acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. is not permissible when warrants have been issued against the accused, ensuring protection for vigilant complainants.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial and fair exercise of discretion under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the necessity of the co....
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 ....
The power under Section 256 Cr.P.C should be exercised judicially and not indiscriminately or mechanically for statistical purposes of disposal.
The court emphasized that dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance must be exercised judiciously, ensuring the complainant is given a fair opportunity to present their case.
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
