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
| 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
Judicial discretion in case dismissal must be exercised judiciously, especially regarding the necessity of a complainant's presence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the magistrate to proceed with the case even in the absence of the complainant, as provided in Section 256 of the Code of Crimina....
The discretion under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised fairly and judicially, and the complainant should be given a fair opportunity to provide the fresh address of th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.