Complaint Can’t Be Dismissed for Non-Appearance When Presence Is Unnecessary, Rules Himachal Pradesh High Court

Trial Court’s dismissal overturned; High Court underscores that the complainant’s presence was not required for the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In a recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi. The High Court ruled that the dismissal was improper as the complainant’s presence was not necessary for the proceedings on the given date. This decision emphasizes the proper application of Section 256 CrPC, particularly in cases where the complainant’s involvement is not required for the court’s scheduled actions.

The appellant, Raman Kumar, had filed a complaint against the respondent, Puran Chand, for an alleged offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court had found sufficient grounds to summon the accused. However, on July 3, 2023, when the case was listed, the complainant was absent despite receiving notice. Consequently, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution under Section 256 CrPC.

The complainant later appealed this decision, arguing that his absence was due to an error by his counsel in noting the court date, and that his absence was neither intentional nor deliberate.

False Plea and Non-Appearance: Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while analyzing the case, observed that the plea taken by the complainant about the erroneous date noted by his counsel was unfounded. The records indicated that the complainant had been duly served with notice and had no valid reason for his absence on July 3, 2023. However, the High Court focused on whether the complainant’s presence was essential for the proceedings on that date.

The court delved into the interpretation of Section 256 CrPC, referencing several precedents, including S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy and S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar. The court noted that the dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 CrPC should only occur when the magistrate is convinced that it is improper to adjourn the case. Importantly, the court pointed out that if the complainant’s presence is not necessary, as in this case where the court was only required to put a notice of accusation to the accused, the complaint should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

“The presence of the complainant for putting the notice of accusation was not required,” Justice Kainthla remarked, reinforcing that the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint was not in line with established legal principles. “The complaint could not have been dismissed in default as per the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” he added.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision reinstates the complaint and directs the Trial Court to proceed with the case from its original position. This judgment underscores the necessity for courts to carefully evaluate the necessity of a complainant’s presence before dismissing cases under Section 256 CrPC, ensuring that procedural fairness is upheld. The case is scheduled to continue in the Trial Court on August 29, 2024.

Date of Decision: August 13, 2024.

Raman Kumar v. Puran Chand