Section 256 CrPC requires judicial discretion, and mechanical dismissal for complainant non-appearance is unsustainable.
Section 256 CrPC permits acquittal for non-appearance of a complainant, but the Magistrate must exercise that power judiciously and consider whether personal attendance was necessary and whether adjournment was appropriate. A mechanical dismissal without conscious application of mind to those factors is unsustainable. The complaints were therefore restored to their original position and re-registered so that they could be decided on merits, and the matters were directed to proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.
Issues: (i) Whether the dismissal of the complaints and acquittal of the accused for non-appearance of the complainant was justified under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the complaints deserved to be restored and re-registered for decision on merits.
Issue (i): Whether the dismissal of the complaints and acquittal of the accused for non-appearance of the complainant was justified under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits acquittal on non-appearance of the complainant, but the discretion is not mechanical. The Magistrate must consider whether the personal attendance of the complainant was necessary on that date and whether the matter should instead be adjourned. The order dismissing the complaints did not show any conscious application of mind to these statutory requirements or any finding that adjournment would not be proper. In such circumstances, the dismissal could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the complaints and acquittal of the accused was not justified and was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaints deserved to be restored and re-registered for decision on merits.
Analysis: Once the dismissal order was found unsustainable for want of proper exercise of discretion under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appropriate consequence was restoration of the complaints to their original position so that they could be heard in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The complaints were ordered to be restored and re-registered to their original number.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the matters were directed to proceed before the trial court in accordance with law on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be exercised judiciously after considering whether the complainant's personal attendance is necessary and whether adjournment is ; a mechanical dismissal for non-appearance is unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
