HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4016 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the judgment & order dated 11.12.23 passed by Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, Jhansi in Crl. Revision No. 144/2023, Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. State of U.P. & another, which was filed against dismissing the Complaint Case No. 5739/2014 (Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. Radha Govind Gupta), u/s 138 N.I. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No. 5739 of 2014 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was instituted by the respondent against him and summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. were issued by the learned trial court. However, the respondent/complainant remained absent continuously for about three years without filing any exemption application and failed to comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the complaint case was dismissed under Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. for non-prosecution and for failure to take effective steps. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2023, the respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2023. The learned revisional court allowed the said criminal revision, set aside the order dated 07.04.2023 and remanded the matter back to the learned trial court with a direction to restore the complaint case and proceed further in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent remained absent continuously for three years and failed to take effective steps. However, the learned revisional court wrongly observed that only one last opportunity had Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Vineet Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Harish Chandra Mishra Radha Govind .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) been granted to the respondent for taking steps, whereas the order-sheet clearly reveals that at least six opportunities had been granted by the learned trial court. It was further submitted that granting relief to a negligent litigant amounts to abuse of the process of law. A litigant who remained absent for such a long period was not entitled to any discretionary relief from the revisional court. Therefore, the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned revisional court is perverse and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court is innocuous in nature and, by the said order, only an opportunity has been granted to the aggrieved complainant to take steps as directed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. There may be various circumstances preventing a litigant from prosecuting his case diligently. Therefore, superior courts are well within their jurisdiction to interfere where a litigant loses his case for non-prosecution and to grant him an opportunity to prosecute the case diligently. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The impugned order reveals that the learned revisional court exercised its judicial discretion in setting aside the order dated 07.04.2023 passed by the learned trial court and in providing an opportunity to the respondent to take steps as directed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The exercise of such judicial discretion by the learned revisional court does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 11.12.2023 is upheld. The petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. May 12, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 4016 of 2024 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad