9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 315 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - acquittal of the accused - discharge of legal/debt liability or not - default on account of non appearance of the complainant - HELD THAT - In view of provisions of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., it has become clear that in case of acquittal in a complaint case, the remedy before the complainant to file an appeal was only before the High Court. The said Section makes provision for appeal against an order of acquittal passed in case instituted upon complaint. Further, in view of Section 378(1)(a) and (b) of the Code, an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate can only be filed before the Sessions Court in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence and all other cases where orders of acquittal have been passed, appeal can only be filed to the High Court. In the present case, the complaint case filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner was dismissed in default on account of non appearance of the complainant - It is well settled principle of law that dismissal of a complaint in default of appearance of the complainant amounts to acquittal of the accused and the remedy to the complainant for filing an appeal against the said order of acquittal would lie before the High Court by filing leave to appeal and not before the Sessions Court. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of impugned order dated 18.01.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa. 2. Legal implications of dismissal of complaint in default. 3. Remedies available to the complainant in case of acquittal. 4. Interpretation of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa. The order set aside the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and summoned the petitioner for trial after his earlier acquittal due to non-appearance of the complainant. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was null and void as it forced a retrial for an offense in which he was legally acquitted. Citing relevant judgments, the petitioner contended that the appeal against an order of acquittal lies before the High Court, not the Sessions Court. 2. The dismissal of the complaint in default of the complainant's appearance resulted in the acquittal of the accused. It is established that such dismissal amounts to acquittal, and the complainant's remedy for filing an appeal against this acquittal is before the High Court by seeking special leave to appeal. The legal principle dictates that in cases of acquittal due to non-appearance of the complainant, the appeal remedy lies before the High Court, as per Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. 3. The judicial precedents and provisions of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. clarify that in cases of acquittal in complaint cases, the complainant's appeal remedy is exclusively before the High Court. The section specifies the procedure for appealing against an order of acquittal passed in cases instituted upon complaint. The appeal against a Magistrate's order of acquittal for cognizable and non-bailable offenses is to be filed before the Sessions Court, while for all other cases, the appeal must be made to the High Court. 4. The interpretation of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. emphasizes that the remedy available to a complainant for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal in a complaint case is solely before the High Court. The section delineates the appellate jurisdiction concerning orders of acquittal, specifying the competent courts for different categories of cases. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside by the High Court, affirming the legal position regarding appeals in cases of acquittal following non-appearance of the complainant.
|
