HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 97 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (In Ref:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application) The office has reported this appeal to be beyond time by 56 days. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant 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 Criminal Misc. Application (Special leave to appeal) (under Section 419(4) of the BNSS) Complainant-Applicant has filed this application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment dated 13.02.2025 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur, in Complaint Case No.11340 of 2020, titled Rajeev Verma Vs. Najmuddin, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Mandi, District Saharanpur, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent no.2 for the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the accused had been summoned in the trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the complaint filed by the applicant- complainant, but vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025, the complaint has been dismissed under Section 256 Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of absence of the applicant- complainant. Learned counsel has argued that at one stage the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajeev Verma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) accused did not appear for approximately one year i.e. w.e.f. 20.03.2021 to 20.03.2022, and non- bailable warrant was issued against him on 21.03.2022, whereupon the accused was arrested and produced before the trial court. Learned counsel has pointed out that again on 22nd May, 2024, a cost of Rs.1,000/- was imposed upon the accused. Learned counsel has pointed out that vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025 the trial court has shown undue haste and dismissing the complaint vide order dated 13.02.2025 on the basis of absence of the complainant. He prays for leave to appeal to challenge the said order. After hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the complaint was instituted on 14th September, 2020 for dishonor of the cheque amounting to Rs.6,60,000/- on the ground that the signature of the drawer on the instrument differed. Pursuant to the summoning order dated 17th October, 2020, the accused opposite party no.2 had appeared on 19.02.2021 and was released on regular bail. No doubt, the accused remained absent during the trial proceedings for sometime, but the absence commenced w.e.f. March, 2021 when the second wave of Pandemic Covid-19 had broken out, but after arrest the accused, he had again joined the trial proceedings. A perusal of the zimni orders would show that the statement of the accused was recorded on 6th January, 2025 and thereafter the case was taken up on few occasions, but the complainant was continuously absent. The ground for absence pleaded in this application is lack of knowledge of the next date of hearing before the trial court as the complainant's counsel had not informed him in this regard, but in the considered opinion of this Court, it is the applicant- complainant, who was required to be diligent to pursue his case. Once the complainant is not appearing continuously who never made any contact with his counsel also to know about the next date of hearing in the pending case shows that he had least interest in the matter. The blame put on his own counsel is not sufficient to condone his conduct. That apart, a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order on 10th December, 2024 and the absence of the complainant- applicant deprived the accused of his right to cross- examine the material witness. Concededly, the order dated 10th December, 2024 was never challenged by the applicant- complainant, therefore, the trial court was left with no option but to decide the complaint on its merits, and because the complainant did NA419D No. 97 of 2025 2 not offer himself for cross- examination, his deposition was discarded. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, no ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal, the same is dismissed. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) September 10, 2025 Raj NA419D No. 97 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad