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

2026 Supreme(Raj) 377

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Om Prakash Nayak S/o Mangla Ram - Appellant
Versus
Gopal Ram, S/o Sohan Lal Meghwal - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 142 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhanwar Singh

Dismissal of a criminal complaint for default on a solitary instance of non-appearance without valid reason or consideration of prior conduct is unjustified, as judicial orders must be reasoned and prioritize case resolution on merits over technical termination.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal for non-prosecution - A complaint under the statute should not be terminated in a casual or summary manner - Judicial orders must reflect application of mind and demonstrate why a drastic course was unavoidable - Dismissal of a complaint carries consequences akin to an acquittal, thus necessitating that such orders are not passed as a matter of routine. (Paras 4, 4.1, 4.3)

(B) Procedural Law - Absence of complainant - A solitary instance of non-appearance by a complainant or their counsel does not warrant the extreme consequence of dismissal, particularly when the matter has progressed to the evidence stage and there is no evidence of persistent default or abuse of legal process - Adjudication on merits is to be preferred over termination based on technical default. (Paras 4.4, 4.5, 4.8)

Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was filed following the dishonour of a cheque issued in discharge of a debt. The trial court dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution after the complainant and their counsel failed to appear on a single scheduled date, despite the matter having already reached the evidence stage after the plea was recorded.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the dismissal order was cryptic, non-speaking, and disproportionate. It found that a mechanical order of dismissal without evaluating the complainant's prior diligence or the necessity of their presence on the date in question fails the standards of judicial adjudication.

Issues: Whether the dismissal of a complaint for default on a solitary date of non-appearance is legally sustainable and whether a trial court must provide specific reasoning for such a drastic order.

Ratio Decidendi: A trial court must exercise its discretion judicially; dismissing a complaint for non-prosecution due to a single absence, without considering the history of the proceedings or the potential for prejudice to the complainant, constitutes an improper exercise of power that denies the interest of justice. Judicial orders must balance technical compliance with the necessity of reaching an adjudication on the merits.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; complaint restored for further proceedings.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for n.i. act complaints (Para 1 , 2)
2. necessity for speaking judicial orders (Para 4)
3. final order granting appeal and restoring case (Para 5)

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of the present criminal appeal, the appellant- complainant has assailed the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Criinal Original Case No.708/2024 whereby the complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be dismissed for want of prosecution owing to non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel on the date fixed. The appellant contends that the impugned order, passed at a preliminary stage of the proceedings, has the effect of non-suiting the complainant without adjudication on merits and has consequently resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complaint was founded on allegations that the respondent-accused, being acquainted with the complainant and sharing family relations, had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on various occasions and, towards discharge of the said liability, issued cheques including cheque No.176440 dated 05.06.2024 for Rs.3,00,000/-. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. Statutory notice was thereafter served, yet payment was not made within the prescribed period, whereupon the complaint came to be instituted in accordance with law.

2.1. The learned trial Court took cognizance, summoned the accused, and upon his appearance, proceeded further in the matter. The accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was explained to the accused, who denied the same and claimed trial. The matter was thereafter posted for complainant’s evidence. On one of the earlier dates, the Presiding Officer was on leave; subsequently, the matter was adjourned to 06.09.2025. On the said date, neither the complainant nor his counsel remained present, whereupon the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence the instant appeal.

3 This Court has bestowed anxious consideration to the material available on record and to the grounds urged in challenge to the impugned order. Despite service, none has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent to contest the present appeal.

4. At the outset, it deserves notice that the appellant is not an accused seeking indulgence after conviction, but a complainant who had invoked the criminal jurisdiction of the Court alleging dishonour of a cheque involving a substantial monetary liability. Such proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are intended to enhance commercial credibility and ensure sanctity of negotiable instruments. A complaint of this nature cannot ordinarily be terminated in a casual or summary manner unless the facts unmistakably justify such course.

4.1. The impugned order dated 06.09.2025, on perusal, reveals that the complaint came to be dismissed on account of absence of the complainant and his counsel on a solitary date. The order is cryptic in nature and does not disclose any consideration as to whether the complainant had been previously diligent, whether the absence was deliberate, whether any prejudice would be caused to the accused by granting one further opportunity, or whether presence of the complainant was indispensable on that particular date. The order is, thus, bereft of reasons and lacks the attributes of a speaking judicial determination.

4.2. Judicial orders, howsoever brief, must reflect application of mind. Particularly where dismissal of a complaint carries grave civil and criminal consequences, the Court is expected to record reasons demonstrating why such drastic course became unavoidable. A mechanical order of dismissal, without examining the surrounding circumstances, falls short of the standards expected of judicial adjudication.

4.3. It is also significant that dismissal of a complaint for default under the governing

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