Brief Facts
- The Appellant had filed eight complaints against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In 3 complaints the complainant was subjected to cross-examination and the same was adopted in the remaining complaints. On basis of the above statement, the complainant’s evidence was closed and the cases were directed to be listed for recording of defence evidence.
- At that stage, an application was filed by the complainant under Section 311 of the Code for summoning certain witnesses. While the matter was pending at that stage, according to the appellant, appellant’s counsel misled the appellant into a belief that appellant’s presence is not required as a settlement was being negotiated. Thereby, the appellant did not appear and ultimately the complaints were dismissed for non-appearance.
- The order dismissing the complaints for non-prosecution was challenged before the High Court which came to be dismissed by a common order dated 07.11.2019.
Issues
- Whether the Magistrate can dismiss the criminal complaints under section 256 CrPC for non-appearance of the complainant even though the statement of the complainant had been recorded?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to proceed from the stage before the order of acquittal was passed.
- The Apex Court referred to the case of “Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand (1998) 1 SCC 687” and held that where the complainant had already been examined as a witness in the case, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass an order of acquittal merely on non-appearance of the complainant. Thus, the order of acquittal was set-aside.
Relevant Para No.
- 12