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) 13576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
SATHI.A. @ SATHIMANI – Appellant
Versus
JAYACHANDRAN NAIR – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1736 OF 2024 | Crl.L.P. NO.303 OF 2024 | CC NO.1551 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.M.Dinesh
For the Respondents: Sri.Alfin Nadarshaw, Sr.Public Prosecutor Sri.Renjith George

The court may set aside dismissal for want of prosecution to allow further evidence when justice necessitates such an opportunity.

Headnote:This appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks to set aside the dismissal order dated 12.07.2024 in C.C.No.1551/2017. The complainant failed to produce evidence, leading to the case's dismissal. The Court finds merit in providing the complainant one more opportunity to adduce evidence albeit while ensuring the accused's right to defend. The impugned order is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded with instructions for the parties to appear.

Table of Content
1. dismissal for want of prosecution may be reconsidered. (Para 1 , 4)
2. court hearings included representation and opportunity. (Para 2)
3. order set aside for the interests of justice. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026 This appeal has been filed under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, by the appellant, who is the complainant in C.C.No.1551/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class magistrate Court-I, Attingal, and the prayer herein is as under:

To set aside the Order dated 12.7.2024 in C.C.No.1551/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal in the interest of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though vakalath was filed for the 1st respondent, there is no representation.

3. The order impugned in C.C.No.1551/2017 on the

12.07.2024 reads as under:

“2. Several opportunities already granted for evidence. The case stands posted for evidence from 2022 onwards but till date no evidence is adduced. No application filed for complainant. The case cannot be proceeded with without the presence of the complainant. This court is satisfied that the complainant is not desirous of prosecuting the case and hence the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.”

4. In such a scenario, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant sought interference with the impugned order and prayed that the appellant/complainant, being a senior citizen, be granted one more opportunity to adduce evidence in the matter.

5. Even though the complaint was dismissed, which is equivalent to an order of acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, as the complainant failed to adduce evidence, in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity to the appellant/complainant, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Judicial after affording one more opportunity to the appellant/complainant to adduce evidence.

6. Needless to say, the accused also to be given opportunity to defend the case. The appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-

I, Attingal, on 16.03.2026.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to 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