1 2025:CGHC:21759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.168 of 2025 M.D Ansar S/o M.D Mukhtar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Tikarkala, P.S Gaurela, Tehsil- Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. ... Appellant/Complainant versus Mohammad Naeem Mansoori (Motu) S/o Munna Mansoori Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tikarkala, Opposite Faizbagh, P.S Gaurela, Tahsil- Pendra Road, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. ... Respondent/accused For Appellant : Shri Aman Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Vishnu Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 09.05.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi in Case No.383/2023 whereby, the complaint case was Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.05.13 11:36:35 +0530 2 dismissed for want of prosecution by invoking power under Section 256 Cr.P.C and the accused/Respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’). 2. At the outset, Shri Sharma submits that there is only a singular default on the part of the Complainant but the trial Court has taken a hyper technical view and dismissed the complaint whereas, it ought to have taken a liberal approach and given the Complainant at least one opportunity in order to meet the ends of justice. He further submits that the Complainant has a good case and prays to allow the Appeal. 3. Per contra, Shri Vishnu Sahu, Advocate appears and submits that he has filed his power on behalf of the Respondent today itself. He, however, opposes the submissions made by Shri Sharma and supported the impugned judgment. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed with the Appeal as also gone through the judgment under challenge with due care. 5. It is well settled that under provision 256 of Cr.P.C, for dismissal of the complaint on account of non-appearance on the part of the Complainant, the discretion should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. On account of a singular default in appearance on the part of the Complainant, the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act does not seem to be proper. If the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act is dismissed in such a manner, the very purpose of enactment of the said Section would be defeated and the 3 strict and unjust attitude adopted by the Magistrate would lead to failure of justice. 6. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment is not sustainable, which is accordingly set aside. The complaint of the Appellant/Complainant is directed to be restored and trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter further from the last stage of hearing, in accordance with law. 7. Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 10th July 2025. The Complainant may also take necessary steps to advance his case in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the Acquittal Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. Record be sent back to the concerned trial Court with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya