IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 175 of 2015

Reserved on: 20.12.2025

Date of Decision: 1.1.2026.

M/s Mehak Fire Protection ...Appellant

Versus

Ravi Kumar ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant : Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate.

Forh the Respondent : Mr Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the order dated

19.9.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before learned Trial Court) for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was dismissed for non-prosecution. (Parties shall hereinafter be

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rHise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complaint was listed for reconciliation before the Lok Adalat on 21.6.2014. The complainant received ₹24,000/- from the accused, and the matter was listed for further payment on 20.8.2014. The accused was not present on 20.8.2014, and the matter was listed for the presence of the accused and the payment on 19.9.2014. None appeared on behalf of the parties on 19.9.2014, and the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint for non-appearance.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed the present appeal, asserting that the complainant’s absence before the Court was not intentional. His counsel had informed him that he was not required to be present before the Court, and an application for seeking exemption from personal appearance would be filed.

The learned counsel failed to file the application, and the learned Trial Court dismissed the application. The matter was listed for the payment and the presence of the accused. The presence of the complainant was not necessary. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

4. I have heard Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and Mr Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

5. Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution. The presence of the complainant was not necessary, and he was assured by his learned counsel that an application for his exemption would be filed; however, the learned counsel failed to file the application, and the matter was dismissed for non- prosecution. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.

6. Mr Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the complainant was absent on the date of the hearing and the learned Trial Court had no other option but to dismiss the complaint for non- prosecution. This was a reasonable view which could have been taken by the learned Trial Court, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another viewu is possible. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal boe dismissed.

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

8. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based o