Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141829 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 128 of 2025 Applicant :- Messrs Nortech Ferro Alloys Private Limited Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. In Ref:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Sectiion 419 B.N.S.S., the same is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed. Office to allot regular number to the application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. (Order on Application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S., 2023) The present application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to grant special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 11.8.2023 passed by Additional Court-II, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 67708 of 2018; titled Messrs Nortech Ferro Alloys Private Limited vs. Messrs SD Enterprises and another, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the complainant-applicant has argued that the subject complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 11th August, 2023 on the sole ground of the absence of the representative of the complainant-company on the date fixed, and the extreme order of dismissal of the complaint has been passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the complainant-company was wrongly kept under impression that the trial proceedings are in progress, whereas there had been no appearance on behalf of the representative namely Sunil Kumar Srivastava, and the dismissal of the complaint has caused financial loss to the company also, therefore, a separate complaint under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., 2023 (Annexure No. 2) stands filed against Sunil Kumar Srivastava. Learned counsel has further argued that on the date when the impugned order was passed, even the accused was not present, therefore, even if, the complainant would have appeared on the said date, no effective proceedings could have taken place in the absence of the accused, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 calls for interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the same grounds also prays for condonation of delay of nearly two years in filing the appeal against the impugned order dated 11th August, 2023, as the company had no knowledge of the said order. Learned counsel submits that in May, 2025, the complainant acquired knowledge of the impugned order, and immediately took steps to file the appeal, as well as the complaint against Sunil Kumar Srivastava. Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the case, as a perusal of the complaint would show that the company-M/s. Nortech Ferro Alloys Private Limited had instituted the complaint through its Director Rajendra Gupta. Further, in support of the complaint, the said Director appeared for recording his statement in pre- summoning evidence, and considering the same, the process against the accused was issued. A reading of the zimni orders would show that the accused had responded to the process issued by the trial court, who was extended the concession of regular bail. Further, the impugned order dated 11th August, 2023 would show that the trial court has noticed three consecutive dates of hearing when the complainant absented, and finally it proceeded to close the proceedings under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The argument advanced by the learned counsel that it all was a result of mischievous act of the complainant's employee namely Sunil Kumar Srivastava, but the record of the case does not show any involvement of the said employee. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant-company had deputed an employee to represent the complainant-company, even then, it is expected that the company is diligent to monitor the progress of the case, and for this careless approach, the blame on the employee would not be sufficient to condone the conduct of the complainant. Similarly, the delay of nearly two years in filing the complaint is also unexplained, therefore, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Brijesh Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad