M.J. Ravindra Reddy vs G. Chandrappa

Jawad Rahim, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the complainant who had initiated prosecution of the respondent for offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act through private complaint submitted u/s 200 of the Cr.P.C. Heard on both sides.

From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the records, it could be seen the private complaint presented u/s 200 of the Cr.P.C. to prosecute the respondent for offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act resulted in jurisdictional Magistrate taking cognizance and issuance of summons for securing the presence of the accused.

The presence of the accused was secured and thereafter the case was posted for trial. Despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the petitioner/complainant did not appear before the Trial Court, consequent to which, he sought continuous adjournments and in fact remained absent on all the dates. Exemption applications are filed seeking exemption from personal appearance, which was granted by the Court continuously from the month of August 2010 till 18.8.2011, on which day, the complainant was also absent. The learned Trial Judge exercising powers conferred u/s 256 of the Cr.P.C. has dismissed the complaint of course recording that accused is discharged.

The petitioner preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P. No. 101/2011. The learned Judge of the revisional Court considering the disputed facts opined the order of Magistrate is passed u/s 256 of the Cr.P.C. and thus revision was not maintainable The petitioner to seek remedy of appeal. Despite such clarity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal as is permissible under law, but filed petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner assertively contends the revision is the only remedy.

Such a submission is undoubtedly ignoring the phraseology of Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. which adumbrates when summon issued to secure the presence of the accused and if the complainant absents or complainant dies, the complaint shall be dismissed. In such an eventuality, it shall be acquittal of the accused. Therefore, by friction of law when the complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution or other circumstances enumerated u/s 256, it amounts to acquittal. Once it is acquittal, the remedy is by way of appeal. I find no error in the judgment of the revisional court. The petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.