In a recent judgment of Nikhil Rameshbhai Mistri Vs State of Gujarat & Another, the appellate court examined the dismissal of a criminal case under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) due to the complainant’s non-appearance. The matter at hand involved the appellant, the original complainant, challenging an order by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic), Vadodara, which dismissed a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The appeal was filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., urging the higher court to reconsider the trial court's decision based on specific circumstances and judicial discretion.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, a businessman and proprietor of Samarth Industries, had issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- in favor of the accused, who failed to honor the cheque, resulting in a "Funds Insufficient" endorsement. After due legal formalities, including sending a demand notice that was not responded to, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Initially, the complaint proceeded, and summons were issued to the accused.
The accused appeared in court, and the appellant provided evidence. However, the case was adjourned multiple times due to various factors, including the COVID-19 lockdown.
As the trial progressed, the complainant's absence from the proceedings on the scheduled date led to the dismissal of the case on 06.10.2023 by the trial court. The court cited the complainant’s failure to attend as a violation under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Legal Provisions and Grounds for Appeal:
Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. dictates that if a complainant fails to appear on the appointed date, the magistrate is mandated to acquit the accused unless a valid reason for adjournment is provided. The complainant can be represented by an advocate or prosecutor, and the court may proceed without the complainant's physical presence. However, the issue here was whether the complainant's absence was justifiable and whether the trial court should have exercised discretion under the proviso to Section 256.
The appellant's counsel contended that the absence was due to a bona fide mistake, as the complainant was embroiled in other legal proceedings, which included facing a false FIR and applying for anticipatory bail. Moreover, the appellant was in judicial custody at the time of the dismissal and was unaware of the hearing.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis:
The appellate court carefully reviewed the facts and highlighted that the purpose of Section 256 is to protect the accused from undue harassment caused by a complainant’s dilatory tactics. The case at hand, however, did not seem to fall under such tactics. In fact, the appellant had already provided his evidence, and the case was near its conclusion when the order of acquittal was passed.
Drawing from a precedent in M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited Vs M/s. Rajwant Singh & Others (2023), the apex court observed that a complainant's absence does not necessarily lead to an automatic acquittal, particularly when the complainant has already been examined. The court emphasized that the lower courts must balance procedural rigor with fairness, especially when the complainant's absence is due to legitimate reasons beyond their control.
The appellate court also referred to prior decisions by Gujarat High Court that had emphasized the need for judicial discretion when dealing with the absence of a complainant, especially in cases where the complainant had been actively pursuing other legal remedies.
Conclusion and Decision:
The appellate court found that the learned trial magistrate had not exercised discretion in favor of adjournment or considered the possibility of proceeding with the case despite the complainant's absence. The court held that dismissing the case without addressing the merits of the case was a misapplication of the law, especially considering the appellant had already been examined as a witness.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order passed on 06.10.2023 was quashed and set aside. The case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration and a fair trial, with directions to provide the parties with proper opportunities to present their case without unnecessary delays.
Significance of the Judgment:
This case underscores the importance of judicial discretion under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and the need for courts to balance strict procedural adherence with fairness to the parties involved. It highlights that while the non-appearance of the complainant is a ground for dismissal, such a decision should not be made without considering the specific circumstances and the rights of the parties, especially when the complainant’s absence is unintentional and due to factors beyond their control. The judgment affirms that the trial court must act judiciously and exercise discretion where necessary to ensure a just resolution.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
