Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ARAVIND RAJ – Appellant
Versus
AJAYAKUMAR T.M. – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 2000 OF 2025 | CRL.L.P. NO.423 OF 2025 | ST NO.2469 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SUNNY P MARKOSE
For the Respondents: SHRI.BENRAJ K.R., SMT.DEVANANDA S., SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
The court emphasized the necessity of complainant's presence in criminal proceedings and the implications of repeated absences on case outcomes.
Headnote:{'statute_analysis': "The provisions of Section 279 of the BNSS Act dictate that if the complainant fails to appear, the Magistrate may acquit the accused after providing a 30 days' adjournment.", 'facts_of_case': 'The appellant, who was absent for multiple court appearances, led to the acquittal of the accused on 27.08.2025 under Section 279 of BNSS.', 'findings_of_court': "The court found that the complainant's continuous absence warranted reconsideration of the acquittal.", 'issues': "The main issue framed was whether the acquittal was justified considering the complainant's repeated non-appearance.", 'ratio_decidendi': 'The court held that while the complainant had failed to appear, there was a lack of evidence taken due to the absence of both parties during the final hearing.', 'result': 'Accordingly the judgment dated 27.08.2025 in S.T.No.2469/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.'}
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. repeated absence of complainant affects case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. reasoning on judgment and adjournment request. (Para 3 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court must follow law on non-appearance of complainant. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. case remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the complainant in S.T.No.2469/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala.
2. By judgment dated 27.08.2025, the accused was acquitted under Section
279 of BNSS due to his failure to be present on the date specifically posted for evidence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Parties are referred to as they were in the impugned judgment, the appellant being referred as the complainant and the first respondent as the accused.
4. The proceedings arose out of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured on presentation and subsequently the complaint was filed. On a perusal of the proceeding sheet it is noticed that the complainant was absent on all posting dates from 30.01.2024. The trial court had on 01.01.2025 posted the case for evidence as a last chance to 19.02.2025. On that date also the complainant was absent and it was posted for evidence to 09.04.2025 as a last and final chance. On 09.04.2025 also both sides were absent and as the Advocates had gone on a strike, the court adjourned the matter for evidence to 11.06.2025. On that date also both the complainant and accused were absent and the case was posted for evidence to 27.08.2025. Yet again, both parties remained absent and since the case was posted for evidence finally, due to the absence of the complainant, the accused was acquitted under Section 279 of BNSS.
5. The aforesaid narration from the proceedings sheet indicates that the complainant had repeatedly absent himself from court. The power under Section 279 of BNSS can be exercised in situations of this nature where a complainant, who was bound to appear on every posting date had continuously refrained from appearing in court and delayed the court proceedings. Therefore, the circumstances in the instant case indicate that there was a callous disregard of the requirement of law by the complainant.
6. in this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the provisions of Section 279 BNSS which is extracted below :-
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 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.
7. On a comparison with Section 256 Cr.P.C., it can be seen that Section
279 BNSS provides that if the complainant fails to appear, the learned Magistrate shall give 30 days time to the complainant to be present and only thereafter can the accused be acquitted.
8. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that even on
27.08.2025 the court ought to have granted an adjournment of 30 days and should have posted the case after 30 days, I am afraid I cannot agree to that contention in the facts of the present case. As mentioned earlier, the complainant had not appeared even on a single posting from 30.01.2024 till 11.06.2025. The cou
