##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.A.(A-SB)-46 of 2025

Date of Decision: 14.05.2026

__________________________________________________________________________

Ravi Kumar ……...Appellant

Versus

M/s S.R. Infotech and Another …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. f

Whether approved for reporting?

__________________________________________________________________________

For the Appellant: Mr. Maan Stingh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Ooral)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 17.07.2025

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu,

Himachahl Pradesh, whereby complaint No.170/2018, titled Ravi Kumar

Vs.g 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 23:32:55 :::CIS

2

he was under impression that his counsel will come present and seek

further time, however, Court below, taking note of his absence as well as

his counsel, dismissed the complaint for non-appea.rance and non-

prosecution.

3. To the contrary, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel

for the respondents-accused, supported thoe impugned order. He submitted

that since complainant had not come present to pursue his complaint, no

illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while

passing impugned order. uHe submitted that in criminal proceedings

complainant and accusoed, unless exempted, are always under obligation to

put in appearance on each and every date.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material hadduced on record, this Court finds that on 17.07.2025, case was

listed for the appearance of complainant. No doubt, perusal of the zimni

order placed on record reveals that on 17.07.2025, matter was repeatedly

called throughout the day, enabling complainant or his counsel 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.

::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2026 23:32:55 :::CIS

3

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:-

“279. Non-appearance or death of complainant. .

(1)If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day

appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent

thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the 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 hearting of the case to some other day:Provided

that where the complairnant is represented by an advocate or by the

officer conducting thue prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion

that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the

Magistrate moay, 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. Aforesaid provision of law gives a discretion to the Magistrate

either to acquit the accused or to adjourn the case for some other day, if

ihe/she thinks it proper