HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11162 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. 2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, challenging the impugned order dated 08.07.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2025 titled Smt. Achla Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another, as well as the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 3935 of 2015 titled Smt. Achla Sharma v. Pradeep Sharma and Another, under Sections 419, 420, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint on 31.01.2001 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, and the same was turned to as Case Crime No. 52 of 2001 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar, against respondent no. 2 along with one Manoj (since deceased in 2024). The police, after investigation, submitted a final report on 13.06.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition, which was allowed vide order dated 15.11.2010, directing further investigation. However, upon reinvestigation, the police submitted a final report again on 03.01.2011. 4. Against the second final report, the petitioner filed another protest petition dated 02.11.2011. The learned Magistrate treated it as a private complaint and, after recording the statement of the complainant, summoned the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt. Achla Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) respondent no. 2 under Sections 419, 420, 506 I.P.C., and after that trial Court issued repeated non-bailable warrants against respondent no. 2 from 18.12.2012 to 09.05.2017. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 06.06.2019 against the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 appeared for the first time on 10.01.2020 and secured bail. Thereafter, he preferred an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2022, which was allowed by the learned trial Court by recording a finding that the petitioner had failed to appear for a long time and that her conduct reflected an intention to delay the proceedings. 5. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are manifestly erroneous. A discharge application cannot be allowed merely on the ground of non- appearance of the complainant, particularly when the complainant had appeared before the trial Court on several occasions, namely 25.11.2023, 06.12.2023, and 06.03.2024, whereas respondent no. 2 (accused) did not appear before the trial Court since 18.12.2012 to 09.05.2017. The petitioner's subsequent absence since 09.04.2024 was due to genuine personal difficulties. Learned counsel further submits that instead of summarily allowing the discharge application, the trial Court could have issued notice to the complainant or proceeded with the case in accordance with the law. The dismissal of proceedings on such vague grounds, without proper adjudication, amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds force in the submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel. The learned trial Court erred in law by allowing the discharge application based on the complainant's alleged default in appearance. The proper course of action was either to dismiss the complaint for default or to proceed in accordance with the law, but not to grant the accused the undue benefit of discharge. It is also apparent from the record that respondent no. 2 himself grossly defaulted in not appearing before the Court for nearly five years, despite repeated non-bailable warrants, thereby demonstrating utter disregard towards Court proceedings. The trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect and did not apply its mind to the facts and order-sheets. Thus, the findings recorded are unsustainable in law. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, as well as the order dated 07.12.2024 A227 No. 11162 of 2025 2 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the Case No. 3935 of 2025 titled Smt. Achla Sharma v. Pradeep Sharma and Another, under Sections 419, 420, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar, is restored to its original number. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial of said case. In case the respondent no. 2 defaults in appearance or seeks repeated personal exemptions, the trial Court shall record specific reasons for granting such exemptions. If the Court is of the view that respondent no. 2 has been deliberately delaying the proceedings, it shall be at liberty to take him into custody and proceed to conclude the trial expeditiously in the interest of justice, particularly as more than 24 years have already elapsed since the registration of FIR. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands allowed. September 17, 2025 Shafique A227 No. 11162 of 2025 3 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad