Judgment apeal426.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 426 OF 2026. Shri Sagarmal s/o Pannalal Chopra, Proprietor M/s. Computer Marketing (India) Aged about 74 years, Occupation – Business, resident of House No.140, Adarsh Colony, Nimberhera, District Chittorregarh, Rajasthan, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Vijay Prakash Jain, Aged about 71 years, Occupation – Business, resident of LB-5, Silver Mall, 8-A RNT Marg, Indore, Indore GP., Madhya Pradesh 452001. ... APPELLANT. VERSUS Shri Nirmal Sampatrao Nagori, Proprietor M/s. Computer Marketing (India), Aged about – Major, Occupation Business, resident of E-253, Lal Kothi Scheme, Opposite Water Tank, Jyothi Nagar, Jaipur. ... RESPONDENT. --------------------------------- Ms N.N. Kinhekar, Advocate h/f. ShriS.P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant. None for the Respondent-Served. ---------------------------------- Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:13917 Judgment apeal426.26 2 CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. Inspite of service, none appears for the respondent. Even at the stage of condonation of delay, there was no appearance on his behalf. It seems that the respondent is not interested in prosecuting the matter, and therefore, the appeal is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission itself. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the 14th A.C.J.M. Nagpur below Exh.1 in S.C.C.No.17435/2008, by which the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, came to be dismissed in view of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the accused came to be acquitted as per Section 256[1] of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rgd. Judgment apeal426.26 3 the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submits that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed, in which an order issuing process was passed against the respondent. The said order was challenged by the respondent before this Court in Revision, which was allowed, and accordingly, the appellant/complainant approached the Supreme Court. Initially the Supreme Court granted stay, however, ultimately, the order of this Court was quashed, resulting into restoration of the original proceedings. 4. The learned Counsel further submits that the appellant is resident of State of Rajasthan and after restoration of the matter he engaged an Advocate, however, his Advocate failed to prosecute the matter, as a result vide order dated 29.09.2021, the trial Court dismissed his complaint for want of prosecution under Section 256(1) Rgd. Judgment apeal426.26 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that the complainant was absent and had failed to take necessary steps to proceed with the matter. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant had engaged an Advocate, however, he was not informed by his Advocate, and therefore, for the fault on the part of his Advocate, the appellant cannot be made to suffer. In support of said argument, the appellant invited my attention to the contents of paragraph Nos. 14 onwards of his appeal memo. It is the submission of the learned Counsel representing appellant, that had it been a case that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the matter, he would not have challenged the orders passed against him upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. She further reiterates that the appellant is a resident of Rajasthan, whereas his power of attorney holder resides at Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that this Court has already considered the reasons canvassed by the appellant while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in challenging the impugned order. She therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed and the order dismissing his complaint be quashed, as the appellant Rgd. Judgment apeal426.26 5 undertakes to prosecute the complaint diligently. 5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant and had gone through the record. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant is a resident of State of Rajasthan and his power of attorney resides in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It also reveals that earlier when process was issued against the respondent, the said order was challenged before this Court in revision, which revision was allowed. The appellant challenged the said order before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court set aside the order of this Court and restored the complaint. Thereafter, the appellant engaged an Advocate, however, it appears that the said Advocate failed to take necessary steps, as a result of which the trial Court dismissed his complaint and acquitted the respondent under Section 256[1] of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. While allowing the application for condonation of delay, this Court had already recorded reasons in its order dated 14.08.2026, that due to communication gap between the appellant and his Rgd. Judgment apeal426.26 6 Advocate, he could not take further steps in the matter. It is also to be noted that the submissions of the appellant has gone unrebutted, since the respondent despite service and opportunities, failed to appear and contest the matter. From the material on record, it cannot be said that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 7. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Shaikh Akbar Talab .vrs. A.G. Pushpakaran & Another (2018 ALL MR (Cri) 1208), and refer to the observations made in Paragraph No.14, which are as follows: “14. In above referred case cited (supra) the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of CrPC by the learned Magistrate due to absence of the complainant. It is held that principles of natural justice are required to be followed by giving an opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the complaint on merits as well as an opportunity is to be given to the accused to contest the complaint on merits. Therefore, the matters were restored by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.” 8. Upon perusal of the record and in light of the law laid Rgd. Judgment apeal426.26 7 down by this Court in the case of Shaikh Akbar Talab (supra), I am of the considered view that the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution, nor should have acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Perusal of the complaint, reveals that the cheque amount is of more than Rs.9 lakhs. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and accepting the statement made by the appellant that the appellant is ready and willing to take necessary steps in the matter, I am inclined to grant the relief to the appellant, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. However, this order shall be subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent by the appellant. The costs be deposited with the trial Court and after its deposit the respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the same. In view of above, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of. Rgd. Judgment apeal426.26 8 (ii) The order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the 14th A.C.J.M. Nagpur below Exh.1 in S.C.C.No.17435/2008, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is restored back to the file of Court below for its disposal in accordance with law. (iv) This order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- by the appellant, which the appellant shall deposit with the trial Court within four weeks from today. If the costs are not deposited within the stipulated time, the Court below may pass appropriate order. If costs is deposited, the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the same. (v) Parties to appear before the trial Court on 01.12.2026. If they fail to appear on the given date, the trial Court shall issue notice to them. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 16/10/2026 10:41:50