Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040001942024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.L.P./1/2024 Tape @ Kape Hemi Son of Late Taka Hemi, resident of Hemi village, PO and PS Manigong, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS Taje Hemi and 3 Ors Son of Late Tago Hemi, resident of Hemi village, PO and PS Manigong, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh 2:Gandhi Hemi Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Shri Taber Hemi resident of Hemi village PO and PS Manigong Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh 3:Tapop Hemi Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Tadung Hemi resident of Hemi village PO and PS Manigong Shi Yomi District Arunachal Pradesh 4:The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the P Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajesh Sonar, Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Tao Tarin,Jumgam Jini,Binter Picha BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 22.05.2026 Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3; as well as Mr. Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.4. 2. This is an application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023), filed by the petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 13.12.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), West Siang District, Aalo, in Complaint Case No. 18/2023, in the matter of Shri Tape @ Kape Hemi vs. SP Tato, Shi-Yomi & Ors., whereby the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, have been acquitted from the criminal case under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The complaint, being C.R. Case No. 18/2023 under Section 136(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 was filed by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, inter alia, stating that the complaints dated 18.04.2023 and 25.04.2023 as well as the FIR dated 09.06.2023 had not been registered by the concerned police authority, and prayed for a direction to the concerned police authorities to register the FIRs dated 18.04.2023, 25.04.2023 and 09.06.2023 and to initiate appropriate action against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. 4. 4. The learned Trial Court, by an order dated 09.08.2023, treated the Page No.# 3/4 application as a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and fixed the matter for enquiry on 16.08.2023. Thereafter, on 16.08.2023, the learned Trial Court examined the complainant and recorded the statements of the petitioner as well as two other witnesses, whereupon cognizance of offences under Sections 447/353 of the IPC was taken and summons were issued against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, fixing the matter for 14.09.2023. Upon issuance of summons, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 appeared and were admitted to bail, and the matter was fixed for consideration of charge on 19.10.2023 and thereafter, on 13.12.2023 for hearing. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2023, observed that the complainant had remained absent on two consecutive occasions and that, although adjournments had earlier been granted by taking a lenient view, the complainant again remained absent. Accordingly, acquitted the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 of the offences alleged, and closed the proceedings by invoking the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant was present on the said date, i.e., 13.12.2023 when the matter was fixed for offence explanation, which is supported by the Attendance Sheet and the conducting counsel was engaged in some other court. He further submits that since the complainant was present, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have acquitted the accused respondents on the ground of absence of the complainant. He, therefore, prays for grant of leave to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 13.12.2023. 6. Having considered that the acquittal of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 was based merely on the ground of absence of the complainant on the date fixed for offence explanation, though the record reveals that the complainant Page No.# 4/4 was present on the said date, and as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to allow this application. Accordingly, leave to file an appeal is granted. 7. The criminal leave petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant