Purshottam Nath Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another

1. This Criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast Track Court, Kanpur Nagar, in complaint Case No.2297 of 2016, Purshottam Nath Gupta Vs. Pankaj Kumar, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Badshahinaka, District- Kanpur Nagar, whereby the complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for non-prosecution and the accused was acquitted.

2. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the opposite party No.2 has taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from the appellant. This amount has been transferred from the bank account of the complainant to the account of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 had taken money to purchase a land and thereafter, give two cheques amounting Rs. 1,50,000/- each dated 21.10.2013, which on presentation was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. After following due procedure, under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the summoning order was passed and the accused was summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Subsequently, on to certain dates, when the complainant could not appear the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Fast Track Court, dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was regularly appearing before the Court and opposite party No.2 was delaying the matter and even then, non-bailable warrant was issued against him but due to Neuro problem appellant could not appear before the Court on 27.10.2016 and subsequent dates and the learned Court below vide order dated 27.03.2017 acquitted the opposite party No.2.

5. The appellant is a businessman but due to heavy loss in business, his financial condition has worst and due to loss in business and other family problems, he developed Neuro problems. The treatment of appellant was continuously going on and he was not in a position to appear before the Court. He has informed his counsel but for some unknown reason, his counsel had not informed the Court about the ailment of the complainant and the complaint was dismissed by the impugned order.

6. It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and one opportunity may be given to the appellant in the present matter to pursue the case to get decided on its merit.

7. A perusal of record and photocopy of order-sheets transpire that the complaint had remained pending for a considerable period and the complainant had been appearing on earlier dates. The explanation furnished regarding non-appearance on certain dates is supported with affidavit.

8. The power under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and is to be exercised judicially. Dismissal of a complaint resulting in acquittal of the accused is serious consequence and should not be resorted to in a mechanical manner, specially when the complainant has otherwise being diligent.

9. In the present case, it does not appear that the complainant had lost interest in prosecuting the complaint. Rather, the circumstances indicate that his absence was due to reasons beyond his control. In such view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeal deserves to be allowed.

10. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.03.2017 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Fast Track Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Complaint Case No.2297 of 2016, is hereby set aside.

11. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned with the direction to restore the complaint to its original number for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be transmitted forthwith to the court concerned for compliance.

(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

May 6, 2026

P. Pandey