MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

High Court Upholds Dismissal of Complaint in Cheque Dishonor Case: Complainant’s Absence Implies Lack of Interest in Prosecution

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court, led by Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, upheld the dismissal of a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to the complainant’s repeated absence without justification. The case, Shyam and Sons (HUF) v. The State of Assam and Anr, revolved around the alleged dishonor of cheques issued by the respondent.

Justice Kalita, in his judgement, noted, “This implies that the complainant is not interested to proceed further with the case anymore,” while referring to the complainant’s absence in several hearings. This observation came as the court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution.

The complaint, initially filed by Shyam and Sons (HUF) against respondent no. 2 for dishonor of eight cheques, was first heard by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup. However, due to the complainant’s repeated non-appearance, the case was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted. The appellant’s counsel, Mr. S K Agarwal, contended that the dismissal was due to an inadvertent mistake by the counsel. However, the High Court found these reasons unpersuasive, citing a lack of diligence in pursuing the case.

The High Court’s decision echoes the principles laid down in similar cases, referencing precedents such as “Associated Cement Company Limited vs. Keshvanand” and “Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs. Manju Devi”. These rulings highlight the court’s discretion under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the non-appearance of complainants.

Representing the respondent was Mr. D. Das, Additional Public Prosecutor for Assam, who argued in favor of upholding the trial court’s decision. The High Court’s ruling reinforces the necessity for complainants to demonstrate due diligence and consistent participation in legal proceedings, especially in cases involving financial transactions and cheque dishonor.

This judgement has significant implications for the legal handling of cheque dishonor cases, emphasizing the responsibility of complainants to actively pursue their cases to ensure justice is served.

Date of Decision: 18 November 2023

Shyam and sons (huf) VS The state of assam

Latest Legal News