1 2025:CGHC:25902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 347 of 2024 1 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. Through Yadav Kamble S/o Sarjerao Kamble, Aged About 35 Years, Office / Resident Of Shop No. 506-509, 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Mob. No. 98230-58889 (Yadav Kamble) Account No. 000905001352 I F S C. 0147, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Moti Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 701, Pragti Chowk, Village - Kopra, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kanhiya Ram Yadav appears on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : None though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.20 17:25:47 +0530 2 Judgment On Board 19/06/2025 1. Questioning the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, dismissing the Criminal Complaint Case No.1927/2019 filed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the 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 28.02.2020. Hence this Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant forgot the date of hearing. Further, the case was listed for appearance of the respondent/accused. The trial Court is not justified in dismissing the complaint, as no prejudice was caused to the respondent/accused as the case was adjourned. He would further submit that there is no default on the part of the complainant and the trial Court has not exercised its discretionary power in a proper manner. As the case is at the initial stage, therefore, he prays to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the concerned trial Court to decide it on its merits. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with the Appeal carefully. 5. In the matter of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand1 the 1 (1998) 1 SCC 687 3 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 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.” 6. 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 4 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 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. 7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as the case is at the initial stage and the same was fixed for appearance of the respondent/accused, but on the date of hearing, both the complainant and the accused were not present, so no prejudice was caused to the accused. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that a strong case is made out in favour of the complainant/appellant to restore the case to decide the same on its own merits. 8. 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. 9. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.08.2025. 10.The complainant is at liberty to take suitable steps for the presence of the respondent/accused in accordance with law, as even after the service, no one appeared on his behalf before this Court and the trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter on its own merits. 5 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