Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101140 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 97 of 2025 Appellant :- Brij Kishor Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh,Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. In Ref:- Criminal Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 01 of 2025 The office has reported this appeal to be beyond time by 67 days. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing of the appeal and as such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed. Office to allot regular number to this appeal. (Order on Appeal) Appellant-Brij Kishor Sharma has filed this appeal under Section 413 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C./Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint No. 4946 of 2019, whereby opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has argued that the trial court has passed the extreme order of dismissal of complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground of the absence of the complainant, as alternatively the trial court could have adjourned the case. He submits that frequently the accused had been seeking exemptions from personal appearance, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. He prays that the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 be set aside and the complaint be restored to its original number for adjudication. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, as a perusal of the zimni orders would reveal that after issuance of process, accused appeared before the trial court and his statement under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26th May, 2023. Thereafter repeatedly, the case was adjourned for prosecution evidence, but the complainant- appellant failed to take any steps. The complaint has been dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 30.01.2025, but this was not the sole absence of the complainant, who consistently remained absent from the trial proceedings w.e.f. 7th February, 2024, and in between the matter was taken up approximately 8 to 9 times. Further, on various occasions, the trial court had granted last opportunity to the complainant to adduce the evidence, but the complainant failed to adduce any evidence. Of course, on various dates, the accused also sought exemption from personal appearance, but on the said dates, the complainant had never appeared, therefore, only the appearance of the accused would not have advanced the trial. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the counsel of the appellant-complainant is also not present and it would show that the counsel never updated the complainant about the dates of hearing fixed before the trial court. The last submission made by the learned counsel is also without any force, as the litigant is expected to be diligent in pursuing his case, and if, the appearance of the complainant is mandatory in trial based upon a complaint, the complainant for his absence cannot shift the burden upon his counsel. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial court has carefully examined the material on record, particularly the conduct of the complainant-appellant while closing the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is a summarily triable, but as a result of the absence of the complainant, the same remained pending for a long time, which has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. The appeal is dismissed summarily. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Brijesh Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad