Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dole Raj Thakur vs Jagdish Shishodia on 11 January, 2018

Author: Vivek Singh Thakur

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA             Cr. Appeal No. 552 of 2017 .

                                                  Decided on: 11.01.2018


    Dole Raj Thakur                                         ...Appellant.





                                    Versus

    Jagdish Shishodia                                       ...Respondent.



    Coram
                    r             to

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the appellant:      Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (Oral) This   appeal   has   been   preferred   against impugned order, dated 27th  June, 2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali (hereinafter referred to as "Magistrate") in Criminal Case No. 14­I/2012/34­III/2012, whereby the complaint filed by appellant­Dole Raj Thakur against respondent­Jagdish Shishodia under Section 138 of ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 2 the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act"), came to be dismissed in default for non­presence .

and   non­prosecution,   when   the   case   was   listed   for arguments.

2. It is apt to reproduce the impugned order herein:

"27.06.2017  Present: None for complainant.

Accused with Sh. Bhanu Pratap, ld. Adv.

Be awaited.  Be called after respite.

       Sd/­ Judicial Magistrate 1st Class  Manali Distt. Kullu (H.P.) Taken up again after respite Present: None for complainant.

Accused with Sh. Bhanu Pratap, ld. Adv.

2. Be called after lunch.

             Sd/­ Judicial Magistrate 1st Class  Manali Distt. Kullu (H.P.) Taken up again after lunch Present: None for complainant.

Sh. Bhanu Pratap, ld. Adv. for accused.

3.   Be called after respite.

               Sd/­ Judicial Magistrate 1st Class  Manali Distt. Kullu (H.P.) Taken up again after respite ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 3 Present: None for complainant.

Accused with Sh. Bhanu Pratap, ld. Adv. 

4. Case called repeatedly after intervals during the .

whole   day.     None   has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the complainant.   It is 3:30 pm already and the cause list of the day stands exhausted.   In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, to my mind, without presence of the complainant this case cannot be proceeded further at the stage and presence of the complainant   is   indispensable   and   the   complainant has   not   been   appearing.     Hence,   the   instant complaint   is   hereby   dismissed   in   default   for   non­ presence   and   non­prosecution.     File   after   due completion be consigned to the records. Announced.

        Sd/­ Judicial Magistrate 1st Class  Manali Distt. Kullu (H.P.)"

3. In   view   of   Section   143   of   the   NI   Act,   offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is to be tried summarily and accordingly,   procedure   for   summons   case   provided   in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") is applicable during the trial initiated on filing a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.   In this   Chapter,   Section   256   CrPC   deals   with   a   situation   of non­appearance of death of complainant.

::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 4

4. In the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in   case   titled   as  Vinay   Kumar   versus   State   of   U.P.   & .

Anr.,  reported   in  2007   Cri.L.J.   3161,  and   another judgment passed by co­ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled   as  N.K.   Sharma   versus   M/s   Accord   Plantations Pvt.   Ltd.   &   another,  reported   in  2008   (2)  Latest   HLJ r to 1249, Section 256 CrPC has been held to be applicable in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act.

5. I deem it proper to reproduce Section 256 CrPC herein:

"256.   Non­appearance   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 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 5 necessary,   the   Magistrate   may   dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.

.

(2) The provisions of sub­section (1) shall, so   far   as   may   be,   apply   also   to   cases where   the   non­appearance   of   the complainant is due to his death."

6.  Section   256   CrPC   provides   discretion   to   the Magistrate   either   to   acquit   the   accused   or   to   adjourn   the r to case for some other day, if he thinks it proper.   Proviso to this Section also empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the complainant from his personal attendance if it is found not necessary and to proceed with the case.  Also, when the complainant   is   represented   by   a   pleader   or   by   the   officer conducting   the   prosecution,   the   Magistrate   may   proceed with the case in absence of the complainant.

7. When   the   Magistrate,   in   a   summons   case, dismisses   the   complaint   and   acquits   the   accused   due   to absence of complainant on the date of hearing, it becomes final and it cannot be restored in view of Section 362 CrPC, which reads as under:

::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 6

"362.   Court   not   to   alter   judgment.  ­ Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in .

force,   no   Court,   when   it   has   signed   its judgment   or   final   order   disposing   of   a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

8. Keeping   in   view   the   effect   of   dismissal   of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, the apex Court in case   titled   as  Associated   Cement   Co.   Ltd.   versus Keshvanand, reported in (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 687,  after   discussing   the   object   and   scope   of   Section   256 CrPC, has held that, though, the Section affords protection to   an   accused   against   dilatory   tactics   on   the   part   of   the complainant, but, at the same time, it does not mean that if the complainant is absent, the Court has duty to acquit the accused  in  invitum.   It   has   further   been   held   in  the   said judgment that the discretion under Section 256 CrPC must be   exercised   judicially   and   fairly   without   impairing   the cause of administration of criminal justice.

9. Similarly, the apex Court in case titled as Mohd.

Azeem   versus   A.   Venkatesh   and   another,  reported   in ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 7 (2002)   7   Supreme   Court   Cases   726,  has   considered dismissal of the complaint on account of one singular default .

in appearance on the part of the complainant as a very strict and unjust attitude resulting in failure of justice.

10. Also   in   case   titled   as  S.   Anand   versus Vasumathi   Chandrasekar,  reported   in  (2008)   4 r to Supreme   Court   Cases   67,  wherein   the   complaint   under Section 138 of the NI Act was dismissed by the trial Court exercising the power under Section 256 CrPC on failure of the   complainant   or   her   power   of   attorney   or   the   lawyer appointed by her to appear in Court on the date of hearing fixed for examination of witnesses on behalf of the defence, the apex Court has considered as to whether provisions of Section 256 CrPC, providing for disposal of a complaint in default, could have been resorted to in the facts of the case as the witnesses on behalf of the complainant have already been examined and it has been held that in such a situation, particularly,   when   the   accused   had   been   examined   under ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 8 Section   313   CrPC,   the   Court   was   required   to   pass   a judgment on merit in the matter.

.

11. This Court in N.K. Sharma's case (supra) also, relying   upon   in  Associated   Cement   Co.   Ltd.'s   case (supra),  has   held   that   when   the   Court   notices   that complainant is absent on a particular day, the Court must r to consider   whether   the   personal   attendance   of   the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason and if   the   situation   does   not   justify   the   case   being   adjourned, then only Court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused, but if the presence of complainant on that day was quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of power envisaged under Section 256 CrPC. 

12. This   Court   in   another   case   titled   as  Boby versus Vineet Kumar, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 723, has reiterated ratio of law laid down in N.K. Sharma' ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 9 case (supra),  again relying upon in  Associated Cement Co. Ltd.'s case (supra).

.

13. Coordinate   Bench   of   this   Court   in  Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2015,  titled as  Vinod Kumar Verma versus Ranjeet Singh Rathore, decided on 6th May, 2016 and  Criminal Appeal No. 559 of 2017,  titled as  Harpal Singh versus Lajwanti, decided on 13th October, 2017, has held   that   dismissal   of   the   complaint   in   default   for   non­ appearance   of   the   complainant   on   the   date   fixed   without affording him even a single opportunity is unjustified.

14. Keeping in view the effect of dismissal in default, the  Magistrate  is  supposed  to  exercise  his  discretion  with care and caution clearly mentioning in the order that there was   no   reason   for   him   to   think   it   proper   to   adjourn   the hearing of the case to some other day.

15. In present case, the case was at advance stage of hearing,   was   fixed   for   addressing   arguments   and   the complainant  was duly represented by the counsel, but his counsel   has   also   failed   to   put   in   appearance   before   the ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 10 Magistrate   for   which   complainant   may   not   be   held   liable directly,   rather,   absence   of   the   complainant,   as   he   has .

engaged a counsel to represent him, may be considered as justified   under   the   bona   fide   belief   that   the   counsel   may attend his complaint in his absence, particularly, on a date of hearing, in which no role on the part of the complainant by the counsel engaged by him.

r to was to be performed as the arguments were to be addressed

16. In view of the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court   and   other   judgments   of   the   High   Courts,   including this Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint in default for single absence of the complainant coupled with failure of his counsel to attend the date.  From the stage of complaint, it is evident   that   presence   of   complainant,   on   that   day,   was unnecessary as the case was at final stage.  The Magistrate instead of dismissing the complaint in default should have adjudicated   upon   the   complaint   on   merit   and   for   that purpose, he might have adjourned the case for a future date.

::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 11

17. It   is   argued   by   learned   counsel   for   the respondent   that   during   pendency   of   the   complaint,   an .

application  under   Section   311   CrPC   was   preferred   by   the respondent   for   leading   additional   evidence,   which   was rejected   by   the   trial   Court/Magistrate,   the   said   rejection order   was   assailed   by   the   respondent   by   filing   revision petition under Section 397 CrPC before the learned Sessions Judge and subsequent to dismissal of the complaint, the said revision was also dismissed as withdrawn.

18. Further, it is argued that on revival of complaint after setting aside its dismissal in default, the respondent will suffer irreparable loss because his revision, against the rejection of application under Section 311 CrPC, will not be revived   as   there   is   no   provision   of   restoration   of   revision petition   once   decided   finally   and   also   keeping   in   view Section 362 CrPC, learned Sessions Judge has no power to revive the said revision petition.  It is also contended that in view   of   dismissal   of   revision   petition   preferred   before   the learned   Sessions   Judge,   the   respondent,   in   terms   of   sub­ ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 12 section (3) of Section 397 CrPC, will not be permitted to file second revision.

.

19. In   my   opinion,   there   is   a   difference   between filing of second revision after adjudication of first revision on merit and filing of successive revision after withdrawing the first revision.  Bar under section 397 (3) CrPC shall become operative only if the first revision petition under this Section has   been   filed   and   adjudicated   upon   merit   either   by   the High Court or by the Sessions Judge.

20. In   a   case,   like   present   one,   where   revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn on account of dismissal of the main complaint, the order passed wherein was basis for filing the first revision petition, cannot be treated as a bar to prefer successive revision petition after revival of the original complaint.

21. In   any   case,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of present   case,   respondent   would   also   have   an   option   to invoke the provisions of Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.   Even if, it is considered that respondent is not ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 13 entitled to file another revision petition under Section 397 CrPC,   then   also,   withdrawing   of   revision   petition   by .

respondent   after   dismissal   of   complaint   cannot   be considered a valid basis for rejecting the present appeal.

22. In the impugned order, there is no finding of the Magistrate   that   the   complainant   was   not   pursuing   the complaint honestly and diligently.   There is no reference of previous   history,   if   any,   with   regard   to   conduct   of   the complainant   causing   unnecessary   delay   on   account   of adjournments   sought   by   him   or   for   want   of   his   presence.

There   is   only   reference   of   his   absence   on   the   date   since morning till post­lunch session.   Therefore, acquittal of the accused without adjudicating the case on merits, due to non­ appearance   of   the   complainant   on   the   date   of   arguments, who   was   sincerely   pursuing   his   remedy,   is   improper.     In normal circumstance, no complainant will be disinterested in pursuing his complaint without any reason, particularly, when it is at final stage of trial involving stake of  ₹ 8 lakhs.

::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 14

It was a fit case for the Magistrate to exercise his discretion to adjourn the case for a subsequent date.

.

23. Further,   it   is   also   contended   on   behalf   of appellant that absence of counsel before the Magistrate was for   noting   down   wrong   date   in   his   diary   by   vice   counsel appeared on previous date.

24.  In   view   of   above   facts,   circumstances   and discussion, I am of the view that there is merit in the appeal and it deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and   impugned   order,   dated   27th  June,   2017,   passed   by learned   Judicial   Magistrate   1st  Class,   Manali   in   Criminal Case   No.   14­I/2012/34­III/2012   is   set   aside   and   complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Manali, District Kullu, is ordered to be registered to its original number and directed to be decided in accordance with law.

25. Respondent   is   at   liberty   to   avail   the   remedy available   to   him   against   the   rejection   of   his   application under   Section   311   CrPC   in   accordance   with   law,   if   so advised.

::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP 15

26. Parties   are   directed   to   appear   before   the Magistrate on 23rd February, 2018.  

.

27. Appeal is allowed in above terms alongwith all pending applications, if any.

       (Vivek Singh Thakur)             Judge January 11, 2018                    ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 23:12:38 :::HCHP