[2025:RJ-JP:25645] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1383/2024 M/s Rajasthan Glass House, Old Station Road, Shivaji Market, Alwar, Through Proprietor Gunjan Goyal Resident Of Sundram 222, Scheme No. 1, Alwar, Power Of Attorney Holder Anshul Goyal Son Of Padam Chand Goyal Aged 40 Years Resident Of Sundram 222, Scheme No. 1, Arya Nagar Alwar. ----Appellant Versus Kailash Meena S/o Shri Kishan Lal Meena, Resident Of Care Of Kailash Public School, Village Surer, Sikandra Road, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar(Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek For Respondent(s) : MR. Jai Kishan Singh for Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/07/2025 1. Aggrieved from dismissal of criminal complaint under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. on 29.03.2023 by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act cases) no.2, Alwar instant appeal is preferred by appellant complainant. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties on merits. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh & Anr.: (2002) 7 SCC 726 has considered dismissal of prayer of restoration of criminal complaint on account of one singular default in appearance on part of complainant as a very strict and unjust attitude, resulting in failure of justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered restoration of Criminal Complaint. [2025:RJ-JP:25645] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1383/2024] 4. In Associated Cement Company Limited Vs. Keshvanand (1998) 1 SCC 687 Hon’ble Apex Court while considering non-appearance of complainant and dismissal of complaint under Section 256 and 249 Cr.P.C. had allowed restoration of complaint. Similarly in S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar : (2008) 4 SCC 67, wherein evidence of complainant was concluded but the matter was dismissed for non- prosecution, the matter was remitted back. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of BLS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Rajwant Singh and Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 326 while considering dismissal of complaint for non-appearance of complainant under the offence of 138 of N.I. Act again considered judgement of Associated Cement Company Limited (supra) and S. Anand (supra) and at last the matter was restored back. 6. Having considered the aforesaid and the circumstances as narrated hereinabove alongwith the principle of law as settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, I am of considered view that the appellant-complainant has able to show the reasons for non- appearance, therefore the appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, present S.B. Criminal Appeal preferred aggrieved from order dated 29.03.2023 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 23/572/2021 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act cases) no.2, Alwar is allowed and the order dated 29.03.2023 is set aside. The criminal case is restored back to its original number, and trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 04.08.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:25645] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1383/2024] 8. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of six months from receipt of copy of order after providing sufficient opportunity to both of the parties. 9. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /93