HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1195/2020 Uma Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, R/o C-121, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP. 2. M/s Kishan Sahay Meena, Through Proprietor and Authorised Signatory Jai Kishan Meena S/o Shri Laxhmi Narayan Meena, R/o 15, Mahendra Nagar, Basawa Road, Bandikui, District Dausa. 3. Jai Kishan Meena S/o Laxhmi Narayan Meena, R/o 5 H 4, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Present Address M B 6/280, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Raj Kumar Sharma (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr.Shubham Agarwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/04/2026 1. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was submitted by the complainant-petitioner against the accused-respondents. After service of the accused, the complainant-petitioner failed to appear before the Court below, hence, the complaint was dismissed in default by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan vide order dated 10.07.2019 and the accused-respondents was acquitted. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1195/2020] 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, a revision petition was submitted by the complainant-petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, however, the same was rejected by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan vide order dated 28.01.2020 by treating the same as not maintainable. The Revisional Court was of the view that in a complaint case, where the accused has been acquitted due to non-appearance of the complainant-petitioner, criminal leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. is maintainable, hence, on this technical count alone, the revision was found to be not maintainable. 3. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant misc. petition. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. The Revisional Court was correct in holding that the revision petition is not maintainable in a case, where the accused has been acquitted in a criminal complaint due to non-appearance of the complainant-petitioner and in such circumstances, only an appeal in terms of the Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Hence, this Court finds no substance in the instant petition, hence, the same is also liable to be rejected on this count alone, granting liberty to the petitioner to file criminal leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. 6. In case, any leave to appeal/ appeal is submitted by the complainant before the Appellate Court within a period of four weeks from today along-with an application under Section 14 of (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1195/2020] the Limitation Act, the same would be decided by the said Court in accordance with law, keeping in view of the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 7. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /47