https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391967 An order dismissing a complaint for the complainant's non-appearance under Section 256 CrPC operates as an acquittal, so special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC is the proper remedy; defective captioning did not affect maintainability because substance prevails over form. The delay in filing was condoned where the litigant had pursued the matter bona fide and had first approached the wrong forum before moving the correct court. The complaints were restored because the absence was explained by a clerical error in noting the hearing date, showing sufficient cause and no lack of interest in prosecution. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391967 An order dismissing a complaint for the complainant's non-appearance under Section 256 CrPC operates as an acquittal, so special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC is the proper remedy; defective captioning did not affect maintainability because substance prevails over form. The delay in filing was condoned where the litigant had pursued the matter bona fide and had first approached the wrong forum before moving the correct court. The complaints were restored because the absence was explained by a clerical error in noting the hearing date, showing sufficient cause and no lack of interest in prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391967