IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.A.(A-SB)-15 of 2025
Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
Rohit Hooda ……...Appellant Versus
M/s S.R. Infotech and Another …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant: Mr. Maatn Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge
May 14, 2026
(Rajeev Raturi)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.(A-SB)-15 of 2025
Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________
Rohit Hooda ……...Appellant Versus
M/s S.R. Infotech and Another …....Respondents Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
__________________________________________________________________________
For the Appellant: Mr. Maatn Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.07.2025
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, whereby complaint No.169/2018, titled Rohit Hooda
Vs. M/s S.R. Infotech, came to be dismissed in default, appellant-
complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 419 of the BNSS, 2023, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and restore the complaint filed under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Learned counsel representing the appellant fairly states that on account of some unavoidable circumstances, appellant/complainant was unable to come present on the date of passing of the impugned order and
::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 23:32:14 :::CIS
##PAGE2##2
he was under impression that his counsel will come present and seek further time, however, Court below, taking note of his absence, dismissed
the complaint for non-appearance and non-prosecution..
3. To the contrary, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents-accused, supported the impugned order. He submitted that since complainant had not comeo present to pursue his complaint, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while passing impugned order. He submitted that in criminal proceedings complainant and accusued, unless exempted, are always under obligation to
put in appearanceo on each and every date.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material adduced on record, this Court finds that on 26.07.2025, case was listed for the appearance of complainant. No doubt, perusal of the zimni order placed on record reveals that on 26.07.2025, matter was repeatedly called throughout the day, enabling complainant to come present, but certainly trial Court ought not have straightway proceeded to dismiss the complaint in default, rather in such a situation, Court could either issue fresh notice to the complainant or his counsel, specifically calling upon him
to come present or his counsel, or could have adjourned the matter.
5. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Section 279 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which reads as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 23:32:14 :::CIS
##PAGE3##3
“279. Non-appearance or death of complainant.
(1)If the summons has been issued on complaint,P and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, th.e complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, after giving thirty days' time to the complainant to be present, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:Provided that where the complainant is represented by an advocate or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may, dispense with his attendance and proceed with the
case.
(2)The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.”
6. CAforesaid provision of law gives a discretion to the Magistrate either to acquit the accused or to adjourn the case for some other day, if he/she thinks it proper. Proviso
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.