Power Of Court To Acquit Accused U/S 256 CrPC Upon Non-Appearance Of Complainant Must Be Exercised Judiciously: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that the discretion conferred upon a Court by virtue of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised "judiciously".Section 256 CrPC contemplates dismissal on default of complainant. It provides that the Court may, after issuance of summons, if the complainant does not appear, acquit the accused unless for some reason it thinks it proper to adjourn...
The Telangana High Court recently ruled that the discretion conferred upon a Court by virtue of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised "judiciously".
Section 256 CrPC contemplates dismissal on default of complainant. It provides that the Court may, after issuance of summons, if the complainant does not appear, acquit the accused unless for some reason it thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day.
In this light, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed,
"This Court is of the view that just because the power is vested with the Court under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground of absence of complainant, the complaint shall not be dismissed. The learned Judge has to exercise the discretion judiciously by looking at the facts of the case and the Courts need not be so harsh on the complainant."
Brief Facts of the case
The Appellant in this case was a under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His criminal case was however dismissed by the Magistrate for default as the complainant was absent for many days even though the matter was adjourned from time to time.
The counsel for the Appellant submitted that two complaints were filed. However, one of the complaints was erroneously sent to the Court of another Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. When the counsel approached the Section Officer, they requested him to verify the register, where to utter surprise, the case was dismissed for default.
The counsel submitted that the non-representation and non-deposit of process in the Criminal Case was purely accidental and due to lack of knowledge, hence the Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the same for default. Furthermore, there are fair chances for the appellant/complainant to succeed in the case.
The respondent/accused did not appear despite receipt of notice.
Findings
The High Court observed that the court below dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that summons of accused was pending since 21.05.2019 and the complainant is absent since 27.06.2019.
It noted that appellant had no knowledge of transfer of case to the Court of another Magistrate, and the proceedings going on in the said case, hence, he could not attend the same.
The Bench relied on the law laid down in different courts viz Madras High Court decision in Arumugham v. Valliammal, 1982, Orissa High Court in Nityananda Samal v. Naraprasad, 1982 and Kerala High Court decision in C.K. Sivaraman Achari v. D.K. Agarwal, 1978.
All the aforementioned decisions hold that the order of acquittal under Section 256 CrPC should not be a matter of routine. All the surrounding circumstances and facts have to be taken into consideration before the Magistrate dismissed the case under the section. The order should show that wide discretion vested in the court has properly been exercised.
In light of the law laid down by different courts, and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court held that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. Hence, in the interest of justice, the High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate and the matter was remitted to the said court.
Case Title: Sri. Mettu Krishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Case No: Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 7