Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Harjeet Kaur, filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Bombay. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on 21 July 1993 on the ground that the complainant remained absent on that date. The appellant challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, arguing that she had been present on all other dates and only missed that one hearing. The High Court, per Justice V.M. Kanade, found that the appellant had shown sufficient cause in the appeal memo for her absence. The Court held that the trial court should have decided the complaint on its merits rather than dismissing it for default. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal order, restored the complaint to the file, and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the complaint on merits as expeditiously as possible. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Dismissal for Default - Section 256 CrPC - Restoration - The trial court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution under Section 256 CrPC due to the complainant's absence on one date. The appellant showed sufficient cause in the appeal memo. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have heard and decided the complaint on merits, and set aside the dismissal order, restoring the complaint to file. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the complaint under Section 256 CrPC for the complainant's absence on a single date, and whether the order should be set aside on showing sufficient cause.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution is set aside. The complaint is restored to the file. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Bombay is directed to decide the complaint on merits as expeditiously as possible.
Law Points
- Section 256 CrPC
- dismissal for default
- restoration of complaint
- sufficient cause
