Jaideep Enterprises vs. Rana Enterprises Cr.M.P(M) No. 1599 of 2025 Reserved on 25.05.2026. 17.06.2026 Present: Mr Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr Aakash Verma, Advocate, for the respondent. The applicant/appellant has filed the present application seeking special leave to file an appeal against the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, in the case titled Jaideep Enterprises versus Rana Enterprises filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It has been asserted that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the respondent, which was listed for defence evidence. The respondent filed an application under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. Subsequently, the accused filed another application under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 353 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The matter was listed on 24.04.2025, and the applicant could not appear before the Court. Learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is bad, and the applicant has an arguable case in his favour. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the leave to appeal be granted. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability, and the applicant having not come to the Court with clean hands. The contents of the application were admitted to the extent that the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court, which was dismissed in the complainant’s absence on 24.04.2025. It was asserted that the applicant had failed to diligently prosecute the complaint. The accused was unnecessarily made to suffer, and learned Trial Court had rightly exercised the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr Aakash Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 4. Mr Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application in the absence of the applicant. The applicant had been diligently appearing before the learned Trial Court, and the learned Trial Court dismissed the application for a singular default. The presence of the applicant was not necessary on the date fixed, and the learned Trial Court should have exercised the discretion to adjourn the matter. He relied upon the judgments of M/s BLS Infrastructure Limited vs. M/s Rajwant Singh and others Criminal Appeal Nos 657-664 of 2023, decided on 01.03.2023, Raman Kumar vs. Puran Chand 2024:HHC:6925, in support of his submissions. 5. Mr Aakash Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly exercised the discretion to dismiss the complaint. The applicant failed to appear before the learned Trial Court, and the Court had no option but to dismiss the complaint. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The certified copies of the order sheets maintained by the learned Trial Court show that the matter was listed for recording the statements of defence witnesses on 24.04.2025. An application for seeking exemption from the personal appearance of the accused was filed, which was allowed. Learned counsel for the accused withdrew the application filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C and filed a fresh application under Section 315 Cr. P.C. corresponding to Section 353 of BNSS. The Learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint because the complainant was absent. 8. The record shows that the reply to the application was to be filed, for which the applicant/complainant was entitled to a reasonable time. Therefore, his presence was not necessary on the day when the matter was listed before the learned Trial Court, and prima facie, the dismissal of the complaint for the non- appearance of the applicant was not justified.1 9. In view of the above, the applicant has an arguable case in his favour. Hence, the application is allowed and the leave to appeal is granted. The present application stands disposed of. Cr.A(ST No. 5600) of 2025 10. The application seeking leave to appeal has been allowed. It be registered. The respondent/accused is directed to furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within four weeks, undertaking to appear before this Court as and 1Raman Kumar vs. Puran Chand 2024:HHC:6925 when directed to do so and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of acceptance of the appeal. 11. The record of the learned Trial Court be requisitioned and the matter be listed for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th June, 2026 (Nikita)