Restoration of complaint in default upheld where complainant's absence was unintentional and accused evaded service.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dismissed in default for non-appearance of the complainant was restored under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The court noted that the accused had already been declared a proclaimed offender, was evading service, and had not been produced despite repeated process. The complainant's absence on the relevant date was treated as unintentional, and dismissal was considered to operate harshly against the complainant rather than advance justice. The dismissal order was set aside and the complaint restored to its original number.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, dismissed in default for non-appearance of the complainant, could be restored by the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint had been dismissed after the accused had already been declared a proclaimed offender under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the record showed that the accused was evading service and had not been produced despite repeated process. The absence of the complainant on the relevant date was held not to be intentional, and the consequence of dismissal operated harshly against the complainant rather than advancing the cause of justice. In these circumstances, the High Court found that interference was warranted and that restoration of the complaint was justified.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the complaint was restored to its original number.

---