Complaint dismissal for default operates as acquittal, barring Sessions revision, yet inherent power may restore it on bona fide absence.
Dismissal of a summons complaint for the complainant's non-appearance operates as an acquittal under Section 256 CrPC, so the proper remedy is an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC and not a revision before the Sessions Court; the revisional order was therefore beyond jurisdiction. At the same time, where the complainant showed bona fide absence, service had not yet been effected, and strict insistence on the normal remedy would cause undue hardship, the High Court could invoke inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to restore the complaint on costs. The matter was thus revived for decision on merits.
Issues: (i) Whether a revision before the Court of Sessions was maintainable against dismissal of a complaint in default, which operates as an acquittal, and (ii) whether the complaint could be restored in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground of bona fide absence and to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Issue (i): Whether a revision before the Court of Sessions was maintainable against dismissal of a complaint in default, which operates as an acquittal.
Analysis: Dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant in a summons case attracts the consequence of acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Once the accused stands acquitted by operation of law, the complainant's remedy lies in an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and not in a revision before the Court of Sessions. The revisional court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision and set aside the order of dismissal.
Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable and the revisional order was unsustainable on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the complaint could be restored in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground of bona fide absence and to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Analysis: The complainant showed a bona fide reason for non-appearance, namely failure to deposit publication charges for service, and the accused had not yet been served. The dismissal of the complaint at that stage was considered unduly harsh. In order to secure the ends of justice and avoid forcing the complainant into a prolonged and technical remedial route after substantial delay, the complaint was restored by invoking inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on payment of costs.
Conclusion: The complaint was restored in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, subject to costs.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent that the revisional order was set aside on the ground of non-maintainability, but the complaint itself was revived for adjudication on merits, with costs imposed on the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint dismissed for default in a summons case results in acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, making a revision before the Sessions Court non-maintainable, but the High Court may still invoke inherent powers to restore the complaint where bona fide absence and the ends of justice so require.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
