1 2025:CGHC:25896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 191 of 2025 1 - M/s Anjana Sales Agency Proprietor - Vikas Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years Old, R/o Sakin-Anjana Sales Agency, Mission Road Korba, Tehsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Urja Engineering Proprietor, Shri Dilip Chaudhary, Aged About 40 Years Old, R/o Quarter No. M.Q- 144, Urja Nagar Gevra Project, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Accused) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Guru Prasad Kurre, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 19/06/2025 1. Questioning the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, dismissing the Criminal Complaint Case No.323/2017 filed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.20 17:36:03 +0530 2 appellant/complainant seeking setting aside of the said order and for restoration of the criminal complaint. 2. The appellant/complainant has filed a complaint case which has been dismissed by invoking the power under Section 256 of the CrPC vide order dated 23.10.2024. Hence this Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though counsel for the complainant was present and he also sought time for producing the evidence but without any warning or caution, the trial Court dismissed the complaint. He would further submit that the manner in which the complaint case was dismissed, the trial Court has not exercised its discretion in a proper manner, therefore, he prays to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the concerned trial Court to decide it on its own merits. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with the Appeal carefully. 6. In the matter of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 256 of the Code imposes two constraints on the Court for exercising the power for dismissing the complaint and provides as under:- “17. Reading the Section in its entirety would reveal that two constraints are imposed on the court for exercising the power under the Section. The first is, if the court 1 (1998) 1 SCC 687 3 thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing then the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused. The second is, when the Magistrate considers that personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on that day the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. When the court notices that the complainant is absent on a particular day the court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But if the presence of the complainant on that day was quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section. The discretion must therefore be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.” 7. In view of the aforesaid legal provision, it is explicit that before proceeding to dismiss the complaint, in the absence of complainant, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 256 of the CrPC, it must be considered by the Court whether the presence of the complainant is really necessary and the Court should act judicially and not capriciously as the duty has been cast on the Court to consider whether the personal attendance of the complainant is or is not necessary. The discretion vested in the Court should be exercised carefully and not hastily. An order of acquittal under Section 256 of the CrPC would bar a fresh trial 4 and therefore, such an order is of immense significance. The order must show that the wide discretion vested in the Court had properly been exercised in accordance with law. 8. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as the counsel for the complainant has sought time for evidence but without any warning or caution, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint by invoking the power under Section 256 of the CrPC, so considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not exercised its discretionary power in a proper manner. 9. Consequently, the impugned order being unsustainable is hereby set aside and the complaint case is restored to its original file for hearing and disposal in accordance with law on its own merits. 10.Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.08.2025. 11.Resultantly, the Acquittal Appeal is allowed with no order as to cost(s). 12.Let a copy of this order along with the record be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka