M/S. BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED versus M/S. RAJWANT SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 01-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
M/S. BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
v.
M/S. RAJWANT SINGH & OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 657-664 of 2023)
MARCH 01, 2023
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 256(1) Proviso – Non-
appearance of complainant – Dismissal of complaints for non-
prosecution – Sustainability of – On facts, the appellant-complainant
filed eight complaints u/s 138, N.I. Act – Complainant’s statement
and cross examination were duly recorded – Accordingly,
complainant’s evidence closed with date set for recording of defence
evidence – Application u/s 311 CrPC also filed by complainant –
However, complainant failed to register appearance on subsequent
dates – Magistrate dismissed the complaints for non-prosecution –
High Court affirmed the decision – Interference with – Held: Called
for – Neither magistrate nor High Court took notice of the factual
position that complainant had been examined and cross examined
– Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaints straight away –
Magistrate could have proceeded with available evidence on record
– Furthermore, complainant’s presence could have been dispensed
with in view of s. 256(1) proviso – Complaints restored – Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 138.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A plain reading of the proviso to sub-section (1)
of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would
indicate that where the Magistrate is satisfied that the personal
attendance of the complainant is not necessary, he can dispense
with the attendance of the complainant and proceed with the case.
Such a situation may arise where complainant’s/prosecution’s
evidence has been recorded and to decide the case on merits,
complainant’s presence is not necessary. [Para 10][188-A-B]
2. The trial court as well as the High Court did not take
into consideration that the complainant’s cross-examination had
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 183
183
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
been over in three complaint cases and the cross-examination in
the above three complaint cases was adopted in other cases that
remained. Both the courts below thus failed to consider whether
in the facts of the case under the proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 256, the court could proceed with the matter after
dispensing with the attendance of the complainant. [Para 13][189-
D-E]
3. Further, if the complainant had not appeared to press
the application under Section 311 of the Code, the Magistrate
could have rejected the application under Section 311 of the Code
and proceeded with the case on basis of the available evidence.
[Para 13][189-F]
4. The Magistrate was not justified in straight away
dismissing the complaint(s) and ordering acquittal of the accused
on mere nonappearance of the complainant. The High Court too
failed to take notice of the said aspects. Thus, the orders impugned
are liable to be set aside. [Para 13][189-F-G]
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand (1998) 1
SCC 687 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 500; S. Anand v.
Vasumathi Chandrasekar (2008) 4 SCC 67 : [2008] 2
SCR 870 - relied on.
S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) By His LRs &
Others (2008) 5 SCC 535 : [2008] 6 SCR 1236 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 500
relied on
Para 8
[2008] 2 SCR 870
relied on
Para 8
[2008] 6 SCR 1236
referred to
Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 657-664 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2019 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLLP Nos.315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321
and 322 of 2019.
Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Neeraj Gupta, Deepak Goel,
Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Ms. Sita Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
Samrat Nigam, Amit Punj, Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, Advs.
for the Repondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by way of special leave petitions are directed
against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019 passed by Delhi High
Court dismissing Crl.L.P. Nos.315 to 322 of 2019 filed by the appellant
against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate-04 (N.I. Act)/South East,
Saket Courts, New Delhi (for short “learned Magistrate”) dated
25.01.2019 dismissing Criminal Complaints No.621744/16, 1718/16, 1276/
16, 1277/16, 621743/16, 621742/16, 12742/17 and 12744/17 for non-
appearance of the complainant (the appellant herein).
3. The short question that arises for our consideration in these
appeals is whether in the facts of the case, the le

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.