The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana,, Rep.by Public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad ..AppellanUComplainant ... Res po n d e nts/Acc used Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.937 of2O76 ORDER: This Crirninal Appc:rl is filed under Sectio n: 37 4(2) of Cr.p.C. assailing the or.der datecl 12.Og.2016 passed in C.(,.No.229 of 2016 on the flle of the Spccial Magistrate, Miryataguda, wh,rrein and whereby respondent No. 1/accuse d $,as acquitted under Ser.tir ,n 256 of Cr.p.C. due to the absencc of appcllar-rt/complainant. 2 It is apt to rcproduce relevant portion of tlt:r impugned order herein " Acc usecl is called present. Complaina n r is called absent and no representation on bchalf of complainant. In the interest of justice mu trer is kept aside. Even altcr some time rlso complzrinant is called absent and representation. Accused pre s-rrrt. Complainant is not showing interest. Hcrrr e, compla int is dismissed.,,

3. Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1,8g 1 (lbr short, .NI ActJ mandates a summary trial for the offence under Section 13g of NI Act, applying tbe proceclure for summons cases rrrrr ier the Code of Criminal Proced,rc, 1973, as detailed in Chapter XX ,n this Chapter, Section 256 of Cr.p_C. deats with a situation of non i 1;pearance of the complainant w 2

4. Applicability of Section 256 Cr.P.C. in a complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act has also been endorsed in the Judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in case Vinag Kumar a. State of U'P'1'

5. It is relevant to extract Section 256 Cr.P.C. heretn

256. Non-appearance or death of complainant. - ( 1) If the summons has been issued on complaint' and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complarnant does not appcar, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anlthing hereinbefore contained' acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conductlng the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendaice of the complainant is not necessar5r, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance ard proceed with the case- (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complarnant is due to his death."

6. Section 256 Cr.P.C. provides discretion to the Magistrate either to acquit the accused or to adjourn the case for some other day, if he t 200l{ri.L.l. 3161 3 thinks it proper. Proviso to this Section also empowc.s the Magistrate to dispense with the presence of thc complainanl f:.om his personal attendance if it is found not neccssary and to prc,cc.,:d rvith the case. AIso, rvhen the complainant is represented by a plezrcl:r or by thc officer conducting the prosecutio., thc Magistratc may pro:r:ed ivith the case in absence of the complainant.

7. When the Magistrate, in a summons cil:ic, dismisses the complaint and acquits the accused duc to absence ol the complainant on the date of hearing, it becomes lln:rl and it cannoi b,: restored in view of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., which rcads as urrder: "362. Court not to alter jurlgment. Save as o herwise provided by this Code or by any other law frrr lhe Lime being in force, no Court, whcn it has signed its jrLdgrnent or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or ; e .,iew the same except to correct a clerical or arithmeticar r:iror.,'

8. Keeping irL vie*' the effect of dismissal of comprirrnt r-rnder section 138 of the NI Act, the Apex Court in Associated. C.trnent Co. Ltd. v. Keshuanandz, after discussing the object and sc.Jrc of Section 256 Cr.P.C, has held that, though, the Section aflords protecrion to an accused against dilatory tactics on thc part o[ the c.rnplainant, but, at the same time, it does not mean that if the complainant is absent, the Court has duty to acquit the accused in invitum. It l-:as further been held in the said ludgment that the discretion under S.ction 256 cr.p.c. \ t , (1998) 1 SCC 587 4 must be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing tlre camse of administration of criminal justice. g.Perusaloftherecordwouldrevealthatthecomplaintwaslrledby the complainant in the year 20 13 for the offence under Section i 38 of NI Act. At the stage of commencement of trial, on 12'08'2016 the complainant failed to appear before the trial Court and there is no representation on behalf of the complainant'

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the ratio of IawlaiddownbytheApexCourtincludingthisCourt,thisCourtisof the opinion that the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint in default for absence of complainant' It is evident from the record that the complainant was not proceeding with the matter vigilantly and diligentlY.

11. For aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal preferred by the appeilant/ complainant is tiable to be dismissed' Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal sha11 stand dismissed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR o //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Magistrate, ttliryalaguda 2. One CC to Sri Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies ABK/PSL ,rr,rt{.r*{tt I l HIGH COURT DATED: 2810712025 ORDER CRLA.No.937 of 2016 ,,i. i r^;:\ .J,' ,/ .-\ "^. \ )\. a \ n I :1 tt'i '. ..; L '.-.,, ) DISMISSING THE CRLA { $