IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 609 of 2018 Jaicky Kumar @ Jaicky Kumar Gupta, aged about 28 years, son of Vijay Prasad Gupta, resident of Village – Seregarha, P.O. & P.S. – Balumath, District – Latehar. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prakash Kumar Mahto, Son of Daudi Mahto, resident of Village – Dibadauri, P.O. – Mandhania, P.S. – Mayurdad, District - Chatra. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : None. --------- Order No. 06/Dated: 6th January, 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the State. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 inspite of valid service of notice. 3. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Complaint Case No. 122 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the aforesaid complaint case was disposed of under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. acquitting the accused, due to non- appearance of complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has instituted a complaint case against the opposite party no. 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in which after conducting enquiry, the order of issuing summoning against the accused was passed and the petitioner was directed to file requisites for issuing process against the opposite party no. 2. Page 2 of 3 5. It is further submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order of the concerned trial court, the petitioner filed requisites and summons were also issued against the opposite party no. 2, but he did not appear then the learned trial court also issued bailable warrant of arrest and subsequently, non-bailable warrant was also issued against the opposite party no. 2. No execution report of the aforesaid warrant were received before the trial court and the case is still pending for appearance of the accused, but it is utter surprising that on 05.12.2017, the complainant was not present and the execution report of warrant was also not received by the Court, inspite of that the order dismissing the complaint was passed under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., which is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside and the complaint filed by the petitioner is fit to be restored to its original file for hearing, otherwise petitioner shall be accordingly prejudiced. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., due to non-appearance / absence of the complainant, which requires no interference and present petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the impugned order and order sheets of the learned trial court annexed with the petition. It appears that the case was pending for appearance of the opposite party no. 2, therefore, non-appearance of complainant would no manner affect the trial of the case because even if the complainant might have present on the date of impugned order, the case could not proceed due to non- appearance of the accused. Therefore, it is glaring inadvertence of the learned trial court in exercise the power under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. not for the ends of justice to have penalize the complainant, which is not justified under law. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The Complaint Case No. 122 of 2017 instituted by the petitioner is restored to its original number and directed to be proceeded further in accordance with law. 9. With above observation, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/Amar-