Delhi District Court
Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. (Niact) vs Saroj Devi on 1 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-010873-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 275/2024
M/s. KENT CABLES PVT. LTD.,
Through its Authorized Representative,
Shri. Raj Kumar Sharma,
Office at: 35, Netaji Subhash Marg,
Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002. ... REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
SMT. SAROJ DEVI,
Proprietor & Authorized Signatory of;
M/s. Saroj Enterprises,
Moti Mishra Lane, Near Thakurbari,
Bikhanpur, Gumti No. 2,
Bhagalpur, Bihar-812001.
Also at;
Near Durga Ashthan,
Bhokhanpur, Bhatta Road, Jagdishpur,
Bhagalpur, Bihar-812001.
And;
Devi World, Ram Nagar (Maranga) NH-31,
Infront of Mahalakshmi Petrol Pump,
Purnea, Bihar-854301. ... RESPONDENT
Date of e-filing : 18.07.2024
Date of institution : 24.07.2024
Date when judgment was reserved : 02.04.2025
Date when judgment is pronounced : 01.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS')/pari materia to Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter, referred to as 'Cr.P.C./Code'), against the order dated 19.04.2024 (hereinafter CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 1 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01 15:57:01 +0530 referred to as 'impugned order'), passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (NI Act)/Ld. MM-01 (NI Act), Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. Trial Court/Ld. MM') in case bearing, 'Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj Devi, Prop. M/s. Saroj Enterprises, Ct. Case No. 14337/2017', in a complaint proceeding under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act'). Pertinently, by virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said complaint for non-prosecution and non-appearance. Significantly, by means of the present revision petition, the revisionist has sought setting aside of the said order dated 19.04.2024/impugned order, passed by the Ld. Trial Court and restoration of the said complaint to its original number and stage/position.
2. Succinctly, the genesis of the present proceedings is the complaint, filed by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court in terms of the provisions under Section 138 of the NI Act. Under the said complaint, the revisionist inter alia contended that the revisionist was a company, engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and supplying of complete range of electrical products, including fans, switches, wires, cables, PVC compound, LED lights, etc. As per the revisionist, the respondent approached the revisionist in the year 2014 for the supply of revisionist's products. Consequently, based on an understanding between the revisionist and the respondent, the revisionist supplied various electrical goods, against invoices, whilst maintaining a running and current account against the goods supplied by the revisionist to the respondent. Under its complaint, the revisionist further proclaimed that as on 31.03.2016, a sum of Rs. 10,94,864/-
CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 2 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01 15:57:08 +0530
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Four only) was due, outstanding and payable by the respondent to the revisionist for the goods supplied by the revisionist from time to time. Consequently, pursuant to various request, reminders and entreaties on behalf of the revisionist, the respondent is asserted to have issued cheque bearing no. 046486, dated 30.08.2017 for a sum of Rs. 10,94,864/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Four only), drawn on Corporation Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'cheque in question/dishonoured cheque') in favour of the revisionist against the legal debt/liability due. As per the revisionist, at the time of issuance of the said cheque, the respondent had assured to the revisionist that the same would be honored on its presentation. However, to the utter shock/dismay of the revisionist, the said cheque, upon its presentation for encashment, returned dishonoured vide cheque dishonour memo dated 01.09.2017 with the remarks, 'Insufficient Funds'. Consequently, the revisionist is asserted to have issued a legal demand notice/notice dated 25.09.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'legal demand notice/demand notice') to the respondent inter alia seeking payment of the dishonoured cheque amount. Markedly, the complaint further records that the said notice was duly received by the respondent, despite which, neither the same was replied by the respondent, nor any payment made, leading to the filing of the said complaint by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court. 2.1. Markedly, upon such complaint being filed and upon the revisionist's/Authorized Representative of the revisionist's tendering pre-summoning evidence, the Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 16.11.2017, took cognizance of the offence under CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 3 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.01 15:57:12 +0530 Section 138 NI Act and issued summons against the respondent/accused. However, subsequently, on 05.08.2019 since the summons issued by the Ld. Trial Court, returned with the remarks, 'unclaimed', Ld. Trial Court was pleased to issue bailable warrants/BWs against the respondent. Thereafter, on 18.02.2022, Ld. Trial Court directed the revisionist to furnish fresh address of the respondent to file an affidavit, verifying the address of the respondent, concomitantly, directing issuance of fresh bailable warrants against the respondent. Markedly, again on 26.11.2022, since the bailable warrants issued against the respondent had returned with the remarks/report, "no such person at this address", Ld. Trial Court again directed the revisionist to furnish fresh address of the respondent or an affidavit, verifying respondent's correct address. However, since no such address/particulars were filed, the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 03.03.2023, granted last and final opportunity to the revisionist to furnish fresh address of the respondent, subject to cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority/DLSA. Relevantly, again on 12.05.2023, 27.07.2023 and 12.10.2023, directions were again issued to the revisionist to tender fresh address of the respondent, however, to no avail.
However, the Ld. Trial Court, eventually, vide order dated 19.04.2024/impugned order, was pleased to dismiss the revisionist's complaint inter alia under the following observations;
"...19.04.2024 Present: None for the complainant.
None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 27.07.2023. On 26.11.2022, directions were given for furnishing fresh address of accused. The said directions have also not been complied till date.
Today also none has appeared on behalf of the CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 4 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.01 15:57:17 +0530 complainant.
A perusal of the record reveals that the conduct of the complainant qua the proceedings has been lackadaisical. None had appeared on behalf of the complainant on the last several dates of hearing as well. It seems that complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. However still by way of abundant caution. Matter be awaited for post lunch session before any adverse order is passed, so as to give the complainant an opportunity to appear.
*** *** ***
At 02.35 p.m.
Present: None for the complainant.
The complainant has not appeared despite repeated calls. It is clear that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the present complaint and in these circumstances no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed for non prosecution and non appearance. The accused stands acquitted. Surety stands discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance...."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist outrightly contended that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court without properly appreciating the facts of the present case as well as by wrongly applying the law. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, the impugned order is wrong and contrary to settled law and has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court, in extreme haste as well as mechanically, without due application of mind to the factual and legal position. As per the Ld. Counsel, Ld. Trial Court, while passing the order of dismissal of the complaint failed to consider that the absence of the Authorized Representative of the revisionist/complainant as well as revisionist's Ld. Counsel before the Ld. Trial Court on 19.04.2024 was neither intentional nor deliberate, rather, attributed to bona fide reasons. In this regard, Ld. Counsel fervently asserted that the erstwhile Authorized CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 5 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01 15:57:35 +0530 Representative of the revisionist, who was dealing with the instant complaint had left his employment with the revisionist. Correspondingly, as per the Ld. Counsel there was lack of communication between the revisionist and the earlier counsel for the revisionist as the erstwhile Authorized Representative of the revisionist had already left his job on the month of October, 2023 and had not properly briefed the revisionist of the pendency as well as status of the present case, leading to the revisionist's omission to take necessary steps in the instant compliant case. Further, as per the Ld. Counsel, it was only in the month of May, 2024, when the Manager (Accounts) of the revisionist was preparing a list and status of ending case, the factum of dismissal of the instant complaint on 19.04.2024 for non-prosecution, came to the attention of the revisionist. Ergo, under such circumstances, it was asserted that the revisionist engaged a new Authorized Representative vide resolution dated 22.05.2024, who contacted with a new counsel to proceed with the matter and take requisite/necessary legal recourse. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that thereafter, on 24.05.2024, Ld. Counsel (newly engaged counsel) for the revisionist applied for certified copy of the impugned order, which was received by the Ld. Counsel on 08.07.2024 and after going through the same, the particulars of the proceedings that transpired before the Ld. Trial Court on 19.04.2024, came to the attention of the revisionist, leading eventually to the filing of the present petition. Consequently, Ld. Counsel asserted that no fault, deliberate omission or negligence can be attributed to the revisionist in pursuing its complaint proceedings. On the contrary, it was submitted that owing to the circumstances beyond the control of CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 6 of 17 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01 15:57:57 +0530 revisionist, the impugned order, came to be passed to the detriment of the revisionist.
3.1. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that there was no reason for the Authorized Representative of the revisionist as well as revisionist's Ld. Counsel not to be interested in pursuing the complaint proceedings, especially when the deliberate conduct of respondent, led to causing loss to the revisionist. In this regard, Ld. Counsel further reiterated that pursuant to business transaction between the revisionist and the respondent and against the debt/liability towards the revisionist, the respondent had issued cheque in question/dishonored cheque in favour of the revisionist, which got dishonoured on its presentation. As per the Ld. Counsel, the respondent deliberately and intentionally failed to abide by its obligation towards the revisionist and in case the present petition is not allowed and the complaint proceedings not restored to its original status/position, grave irreparable loss would result to the revisionist. In contrast, it was submitted that no loss would accrue to the respondent in case the relief as sought for in the instant petition is permitted, considering that the proceedings in complaint case were still at nascent stage prior to the passing of impugned order and the respondent has not even entered appearance before the Ld. Trial Court, when the impugned order was passed. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel fervently asserted that the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order, oblivious of the facts of the present case, settled judicial precedents as well as legal provisions, deserving the same to be set aside at the outset.
4. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the notice of the present petition was issued to the respondent on 24.07.2024.
CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 7 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.07.01 15:58:24 +0530
However, subsequently, on 22.08.2024, only the report of service of summons issued to the respondent, through registered AD at Bhagalpur, Bihar was received unserved with the remarks, "incomplete address". Consequently, at the request of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, this Court was pleased to issue fresh process qua the respondent through all modes, including through dasti mode. Thereafter, fresh process was again issued on 25.10.2024 and subsequently, on 20.12.2024, this Court noted under its order/daily order dated 20.12.2024, as under;
"...As per the service report of speed post/notice, issued to the respondent at her address at Bhagalpur, Bihar, i.e., Moti Mishra Lane and near Durga Asthan, same have returned unserved with the remarks that the addressee could not be located at the said addresses. However, no report on service of summons to the respondent at her address at Mahalaxmi Petrol Pump, Purnea, Bihar is forthcoming.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has filed an affidavit inter alia deposing that the summons/notice have been duly served to the respondent at her address at Purnea, Bihar. Registered ADs receipts and tracking report in this regard are annexed with the affidavit.
The respondent has not entered appearance despite such service. Nevertheless, as requested, issue notice of the petition to the respondent by way of publication in two local Newspapers i.e. one in English Newspaper and one in Hindi Newspaper, having circulation in the area, where respondent is residing, on filing of PF.
In the interest of justice, list for further proceedings on 24.02.2025..."
(Emphasis supplied) 4.1. Noticeably, subsequently, on 24.02.2025, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the notice of present proceedings/instant revision petition through publication was already carried out in, 'Rashtriya Sahara' newspaper, Patna edition, dated 18.02.2025 and 'The Hindu' newspaper, Patna CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 8 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.01 15:58:36 +0530 edition, dated 18.02.2025. Subsequently, on 20.03.2025, an affidavit of service of the respondent through said publications was filed by/on behalf of the revisionist. However, it was noted that the respondent did not enter appearance before this Court either in person or through Ld. Counsel, despite such service on publication and even on earlier occasion by Ld. Counsel for the respondent on dasti mode. Consequently, the proceedings in the present petition were proceeded in the absence of respondent, considering deliberate absence on the part of the respondent before this Court. Apposite at this stage to reproduce the relevant extracts of the order dated 20.03.2025 of this Court, as under;
"...Pursuant to the order passed on the last date of hearing, an affidavit has been filed regarding the service of respondent, through publication, along with copies of newspapers bearing Rashtriya Sahara' Patna Edition dated 18.02.2025 and The Hindu Patna Eastern Edition dated 18.02.2025. As per the affidavit and newspaper, it is observed that the revisionist has duly executed the process/notice of the present revision petition to the respondent at the addresses specified under the memo of parties, by means of the publication. However, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent despite repeated calls. Further, the respondent is also not present.
Notably, 20.12.2024, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist had filed an affidavit inter alia proclaiming that the summons had been duly served to the respondent at her address at 'Devi World, Ram Nagar (Maranga) NH-31, in front of Mahalaskhmi Petrol Pump, Purnca, Bihar, 854301 on 29.11.2024. However, despite the same, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent or by the respondent even on the said date.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is not interested in pursuing the present revision petition.
In the interest of justice, list for further proceedings on 02.04.2025..."
(Emphasis supplied) CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 9 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK GOYAL ABHISHEK Date: GOYAL 2025.07.01 15:58:42 +0530
5. The arguments of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist have been heard as well as the record(s), including the Trial Court record(s), thoroughly perused.
6. Before proceeding further with the determination of the rival contentions of parties, i.e., Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this deems it apposite to outrightly refer and reproduce the provisions under law/Section 438 BNSS1, as under;
"438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision--(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation--All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 439.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding...."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Pertinently, from a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite manifest that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be agitated either suo motu or an application of the parties only in 1 Pari materia provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. provides as, "397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.***Explanation - All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.***(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding..." (Emphasis supplied) CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 10 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.01 15:58:50 +0530 the instances where there is a palpable error, non-compliance of the provision of law, decision of Trial Court being completely erroneous or where the judicial decision is exercised arbitrarily. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble Court while explicating the various contours of the provision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. observed as under:
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
(Emphasis supplied) CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 11 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01 15:58:55 +0530
8. Analogously, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in V.K. Verma v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1192 , in a similar context noted as under;
"67. The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Quite evidently, it may be noted from above that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is quite limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In fact, as aforenoted, the revisional Court can interfere only in the instances where an order of trial court was passed, unjustly and unfairly. Further, it is a settled law2 that in a case where the order of subordinate Court does not suffer from any illegality, "merely because of equitable considerations, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re- consider the matter and pass a different order in a routine manner." Reference in this regard is made to the decision in Taron Mohan v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expounded the law, as under;
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is 2 Juned v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 4458; and Dilip Damor v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 958.
CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 12 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01 15:59:00 +0530
also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case . A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence..."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Ergo, in light of the foregoing discussion, the question that outrightly falls for consideration before this Court pertains to the maintainability of the present revision petition against the impugned order, dismissing the revisionist's complaint for non- prosecution, post summons were issued qua the respondent. In other words, this Court has to determine, 'whether the dismissal of the revisionist's complaint, after summoning of the respondent/accused can be challenged by way of a criminal revision? '. However, in order to deal with the said issue, this Court deems it pertinent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/Cr.P.C. as under;
"204. Issue of process-***(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.*** *** *** ***
256. Non-appearance or death of complainant-(1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:
Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may, dispense with his CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 13 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.01 15:59:07 +0530 attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-
appearance of the complainant is due to his death."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Markedly, it is seen from above that Cr.P.C. envisages a situation of dismissal of criminal complaint for the reason(s) of non-payment/deposit of process fees or other fees, within a reasonable time, under Section 204, thereof. In contrast, Section 256 Cr.P.C. envisions a situation where the summons have been issued on the complaint and on the date appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not enter appearance, either in person or through complainant's appointed counsel. Under such situation, law/Section 256 Cr.P.C. confers power on the court/Magistrate to acquit such an accused. Quite lucidly, the difference between the said two provisions is quite apparent, whilst former dealing with a situation prior to the summoning of an accused, whilst, latter deals with a case, subsequent to issuance of such summoning. Here, this Court deems it apposite to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kalpana Tyagi v. Sneh Lata Sharma, 2003 (68) DRJ 14: 2003 Cri. LJ 3395, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while expounding the appropriate legal recourse, available in the aforestated two situations, noted as under;
"8. A distinction, therefore, has to be drawn in regard to the complaints dismissed prior to the summoning of an accused and those dismissed subsequent to the summoning of the accused if a complaint is dismissed prior to the summoning of an accused the order may be challenged by way of filing a revision but once Section 256 comes into play, the dismissal of a complaint has the effect of acquittal of an accused and only an appeal can be filed under Section 378 of the Code to challenge his acquittal."CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 14 of 17 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.07.01 15:59:12 +0530 (Emphasis supplied)
12. Correspondingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. M.P.S. Chawla, (1998) 92 Comp. Cas 686 (HP): (1997) 2 Crimes 591 (H&P), noted in akin context, as under;
"12. There is no denying that the dismissal of the complaint in default under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, entails the acquittal of the accused. Once an accused has been acquitted of the offence, the law provides a remedy by way of an appeal against the order of acquittal. Once a remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the failure of the petitioner to avail of such a remedy, this court is not to exercise the inherent powers for interfering with the impugned order."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Ergo, in light of the foregoing, when the facts of the present case are conscientiously analysed, it is observed that the Ld. Trial Court under its order dated 05.08.2019 duly noted that the summons issued to the respondent were returned as 'unclaimed' and as aforenoted, Ld. Trial Court reached a conclusion that the respondent was deliberately avoiding appearance before the Ld. Trial Court, leading to issuance of bailable warrants against the respondent. Pertinent to reproduce the relevant extracts of the order dated 05.08.2019, as under;
"...Summons sent to the accused through registered AD received back with report, "unclaimed".
Original postal receipts and tracking reports being filed on behalf of the complainant indicating the service of summons upon the accused.
In view of the above said reports, it appears that accused is deliberately avoiding the appearance before this court and concealing herself/themselves. Hence, let bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 10.000, be issued against the accused, with one surety of like amount, through the SHO concerned. on taking steps/ PF, returnable for 12.12.2019..."
(Emphasis supplied)
CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 15 of 17
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK ABHISHEK
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01
15:59:17 +0530
14. Quite evidently, once the summons were issued against the respondent by the Ld. Trial Court, whereupon the Ld. Trial Court proceeded with the initiation of coercive steps against the respondent, the eventual dismissal of the revisionist's complaint for non-prosecution and non-appearance, amounts to an order under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that by virtue of the provisions under Section 143 NI Act, provisions under Section 256 Cr.P.C. are squarely applicable to the present case. Correspondingly, as hereinunder noted, the impugned order explicitly records a finding of acquittal of the respondent/accused herein. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, legal provisions as well as judicial precedents cited herein, there remains no doubt that present revision petition is not maintainable because the effect of the impugned order was acquittal of the respondent herein and, as aforenoted, such an order cannot be challenged by way of criminal revision.
15. Consequently, in light of the foregoing discussion and keeping in view the aforenoted judicial precedents, law as well as the submissions addressed before this Court, this Court unambiguously reiterates that the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by Ld. MM-01 (NI Act), Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case bearing, 'Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj Devi, Prop. M/s. Saroj Enterprises, Ct. Case No. 14337/2017', dismissing the revisionist's complaint for non-prosecution and non-appearance is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, in light of the above, this Court unambiguously observes that present revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
16. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 16 of 17 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.07.01 15:59:21 +0530 this order.
17. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.07.01
15:59:26
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 01.07.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 275/2024 M/s. Kent Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj Devi Page 17 of 17