2020 (4) TMI 411 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of Special Leave to appeal - right to appeal - case of respondent is that in absence of an order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, no right of appeal is conferred by statute upon the appellant/complainant - whether on the dismissal of a complaint consequent upon rejection of an application for condonation of delay, the same amounts to acquittal of the accused? - HELD THAT - An order of dismissal of first complaint under Section 203 CrPC is no bar for the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances such as where the previous order was passed on incomplete record, or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceeding. The fact that a second complaint can be entertained on same facts, albeit in exceptional circumstances, after dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 CrPC, demonstrates that dismissal of a complaint at every stage does not automatically result in acquittal of the accused because if the accused is acquitted, such acquittal can be questioned only by taking recourse to Section 378 (4) CrPC. - dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 CrPC is at a stage prior to issuance of process. In the instant cases, no cognizance of any offence was taken by the Court and even the cognizance of the complaint was not taken as the Court had rejected the applications for condonation of delay in not making the complaints within the prescribed period and therefore, there was no occasion to issue summons to the accused. It is manifest that criminal proceedings had not commenced based on the complaints. When criminal proceedings had not commenced, it will be incongruous to hold that the accused stands acquitted with the dismissal of the complaint - thus, in a circumstance where a complaint is dismissed as a consequence of the Court being not satisfied that the complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the prescribed period, the same does not result in acquittal of the accused. These leave petitions seeking leave to appeal are not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of applications for special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC.
2. Interpretation of dismissal of complaints under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Consideration of whether dismissal of a complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Applications for Special Leave to Appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC:
The applications, Crl. L.P No. 4/2019 and Crl. L.P No. 5/2019, were filed under Section 378(4) CrPC, seeking special leave to appeal against the orders dated 26.02.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate, which dismissed the complaints due to non-condonation of delay. The respondents objected, arguing that without an order of acquittal, no right of appeal is conferred by statute upon the appellant/complainant, rendering the applications non-maintainable. The court noted that appeals had not been registered as the leave petitions were pending adjudication.

2. Interpretation of Dismissal of Complaints under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The complaints were filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, accompanied by applications for condonation of delay under Section 142(1)(b) for delays of 39 and 78 days, respectively. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaints, stating the complainant had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay, thus not taking cognizance of the complaints. The court emphasized that Section 142(1) of the N.I. Act mandates that complaints must be filed within one month of the cause of action, with a proviso allowing for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

3. Consideration of Whether Dismissal of a Complaint Amounts to Acquittal of the Accused:
The court examined whether the dismissal of a complaint due to non-condonation of delay amounts to an acquittal. The appellant argued that such dismissal should be considered an acquittal, making an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC maintainable. The court reviewed various precedents, including Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, Mander Singh vs. Ladi, and Kalpana Tyagi vs. Sneh Lata Sharma, which discussed the implications of dismissals and acquittals in summons-cases. The court distinguished between dismissals prior to and post-summoning of the accused, emphasizing that dismissals prior to summoning do not equate to acquittals.

The court concluded that the dismissal of complaints due to non-condonation of delay does not result in the acquittal of the accused, as no cognizance of the offence was taken, and criminal proceedings had not commenced. Therefore, the applications for special leave to appeal were deemed non-maintainable. The court dismissed the leave petitions, reserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue other legal remedies and clarified that no opinion on the merits of the Magistrate's orders was expressed.