-
by sayum
20 February 2026 8:24 AM
“Right to Prosecute Cannot Be Defeated by One Day’s Absence” — In a significant ruling Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, allowed Criminal Appeal, setting aside the dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which had been rejected by the trial court for default in appearance during cross-examination. Emphasizing the need to ensure justice over procedural rigidity, the Court held:
“The absence of the complainant on the given date is not deliberate… it is apposite to allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law.” [Para 6]
This judgment reaffirms that technical lapses should not override substantive justice, particularly when the complainant is willing and ready to prosecute the case and the amount involved is substantial.
Complaint Dismissed Despite Monetary Stakes and Intent to Prosecute
The case originated from a private complaint filed by the appellant, Nagareddy Amogh Hemanth Reddy, alleging dishonour of a cheque for ₹3,00,000 issued by respondent no. 2, Alvarsetty Chenchaiah, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The matter was pending before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore in C.C. No. 491 of 2018, and had reached the stage of further cross-examination of the complainant. However, on the appointed date, the complainant was absent, and his counsel too failed to appear. The trial court, noting previous conditional orders for appearance, dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution on 6 January 2025.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed the present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 378(4) of CrPC, seeking restoration of the complaint.
Default Was Not Wilful, Dismissal Unjustified
The High Court carefully evaluated the circumstances of the complainant’s absence. Though the respondent argued that the complainant had repeatedly failed to comply with directions, the Court took a broader view of justice, noting:
“The complainant could not appear before the Court on two occasions due to unavoidable reasons, but it is not deliberate.” [Para 5]
The Court accepted the complainant’s intent to pursue the matter, and his counsel’s explanation regarding absence of legal representation on the relevant date. Accordingly, the Court held:
“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as subject cheque is worth ₹3,00,000 and the absence… is not deliberate, it is apposite to allow the appeal…” [Para 6]
Court Cautions Against Further Delay
While restoring the complaint, the High Court issued directions to ensure expeditious disposal and warned that any repeat of non-compliance would be dealt with firmly:
“The learned trial Judge is requested to proceed with the matter and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without granting any further adjournments… If the complainant repeats the same lethargy, the Trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the matter…” [Para 7]
Both parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 14.07.2025 without fail, and the trial court was asked to avoid delays arising from mere requests for adjournments.
Procedural Discipline Must Serve, Not Defeat, Justice
Reinstating the complaint, the High Court emphasized that justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of rigid procedure, especially when the complainant demonstrates readiness to pursue the prosecution. The order ensures a fair trial on merits, while simultaneously cautioning the complainant against any further indiscipline.
“The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal according to law.” [Para 7]
Date of Decision: 2 July 2025
