SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J
Shemitha – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Naseer – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 327 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Deepak Joy.K.
For the Respondents: Anima.M., Public Prosecutor

The court emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for appellants to present their cases in order to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law.

Headnote:This appeal is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenging the dismissal of the complaint due to the complainant's absence. The court found merit in the appellant's request for a retrial to uphold the rule of law (paragraph 1). The main issues addressed include the implications of the complainant's non-appearance and the opportunity for the complainant to represent their case (paragraph 2). The appeal is allowed, and the previous order is set aside, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration (final paragraph).

Table of Content
1. court considers merits of retrial due to non-appearance. (Para 2)
2. appeal allowed, matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 02nd day of February, 2026 This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 in S.T. No. 1294 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy, as extracted hereunder:-

“This case is registered based on a complaint alleged by the complainant alleging offence punishable underSection 138ofNegotiable Instruments Act. Complainant absent. No representation. Steps not taken several opportunities given. Hence, complaint is dismissed under Section 256(1) of the Cr.P.C.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent. Even though notice was served upon the first respondent, who is the accused in this case, he did not appear.

3. On reading the verdict passed by the trial court, the accused was acquitted under Section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , due to the complainant's failure to appear and to take steps. Even though the non- representation and failure to take steps to proceed with the complaint are the reasons stated for the acquittal of the accused, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant prayed for one more opportunity to the appellant/complainant to proceed with the matter, after setting aside the order impugned and remanding the matter back to the trial court to consider afresh. This argument found to be acceptable in the facts of this case to uphold the 'Rule of law'.

Accordingly, I am inclined to allow this appeal. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order dated

01.11.2019 in S.T. No. 1294 of 2019 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy, for fresh consideration, after providing an opportunity to the appellant/complainant to take steps and proceed further. The appellant and the first respondent are directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy on 03.03.2026. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy for further information and compliance.

SD/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top