9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Dismissal of complaint in default under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Restoration of the dismissed complaint - Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Legality of the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a company, supplied goods on credit to the respondent who failed to make payments, leading to dishonored cheques. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 138 and issued process against the respondent. However, due to the petitioner's absence, the complaint was dismissed in default, and the respondent was acquitted under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The petitioner sought restoration of the complaint, which was denied by the Magistrate citing lack of provisions for such restoration in the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 for quashing the Magistrate's order. 4. The High Court referred to precedents stating that subordinate courts lack inherent powers to review orders, unlike the High Court. The court also highlighted that dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 results in acquittal, with the remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. 5. The court emphasized that Section 482 should be used sparingly and not for matters with existing remedies. Since the order of acquittal was legal and fell within the scope of Section 256, the High Court concluded that the petition under Section 482 was not maintainable. 6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the legality of the Magistrate's order of acquittal and emphasizing the availability of the appeal remedy for the petitioner.
|
