https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772558 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed for non-appearance under Section 256 CrPC after repeated unattended dates, and that dismissal operated as an acquittal. The High Court noted that revision was not maintainable against such an order because the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC with special leave. It also confirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass an express statutory remedy or to revive proceedings concluded by a lawful acquittal. The request to restore the complaint under Section 482 was therefore rejected, leaving the dismissal and revisional order undisturbed. en-us Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 10:10:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772558 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed for non-appearance under Section 256 CrPC after repeated unattended dates, and that dismissal operated as an acquittal. The High Court noted that revision was not maintainable against such an order because the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC with special leave. It also confirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass an express statutory remedy or to revive proceedings concluded by a lawful acquittal. The request to restore the complaint under Section 482 was therefore rejected, leaving the dismissal and revisional order undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772558