Bombay High Court
VENKAT KISHANRAO TELANGversusSHAKUNTALABAI W/O RAMESH SUTAR
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The High Court set aside the dismissal order and granted leave to appeal, directing a fresh hearing of the complaint.
Summary
The applicant, Venkat, filed an application for leave to appeal after his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur, invoking Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground of alleged lack of interest. The applicant contended that he had been diligent, having filed an application for a non-bailable warrant and attending several hearings, and that the dismissal was based on a single instance of his absence. The learned magistrate had previously adjourned the case multiple times due to the accused’s absence, and finally dismissed the complaint on 23 July 2024. The High Court, after hearing the applicant’s counsel, held that in the interest of justice the applicant should be given an opportunity to prosecute the complaint. Consequently, the leave application was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing. The appeal was disposed of after granting leave to file it.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the complaint under Section 256 CrPC was justified given the applicant's alleged diligence.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal the dismissal order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 256
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- Section 256 CrPC
- cheque bounce
- leave to appeal
- dismissal of complaint
- remand
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39586
ALP-152-2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PRIVATE PARTY NO. 152 OF 2024
Venkat s/o Kishanrao Telang
Age 54 years, Occupation Business,
R/o: Jalkot, Taluka Jalkot,
District Latur. … Applicant [Ori. Complainant]
Versus
Shakuntalabai w/o Ramesh Sutar
Age Major, Occupation Business,
R/o: Deshi Daru Dukan, CL3/13/2019-20,
In front of Bus Stand, Ausa,
Taluka Ausa, District Latur. … Respondent [Orig. Accused]
…..
Mr. Rajendra R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 28.08.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-original complainant.
None present for the respondent.
2. Instant leave application is at the behest of original
complainant, whose proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (NI Act) ended up in dismissal of complaint by
invoking Section 256 of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that, proceeding
bearing S.C.C. No. 1941 of 2019 was instituted against present
ALP-152-2024
-2-
respondent alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act
and on satisfaction, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Court
No. 4), Latur also issued process on 30.09.2019. Learned counsel
submitted that, learned trial court dismissed the complaint on account
of single instance of absence of the complainant’s Advocate and
failure to take steps since last many dates. However, he pointed out
that, complainant was vigilant in prosecuting the matter and he had
also taken necessary steps, which can be seen from the roznama.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that, matter was diligently
contested by the applicant in the trial court. That, on 30.11.2023,
applicant had filed application Exhibit 33 for issuance of N.B.W.
against the accused, on which order also came to be passed on the
same day. However, thereafter the Court was on leave on 12.01.2024.
On 13.03.2024 and 08.05.2024, though complainant and his
Advocate were present, matter was adjourned due to absence of
accused and his Advocate. Only on 23.07.2024, complaint and his
Advocate were absent. However, due to applicant’s absence on that
single date, by observing that applicant is not interested in
prosecuting the complaint, the same is dismissed under Section 256
of Cr.P.C.. Hence this Application.
ALP-152-2024
-3-
5. Considering the above, in the interest of justice and in view of
the statement made across the bar that applicant is ready to diligently
workout the matter, applicant deserves an opportunity to prosecute
his complaint. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
I. The Application is allowed.
II. Leave is granted to file Appeal.
III. Registry to register the Appeal.
In Appeal, the following order is passed :
IV. The impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.2), Latur in S.C.C. No.
1941 of 2019 is hereby set aside.
V. The matter is remanded back to the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (Court No.2), Latur, who shall conduct
hearing afresh by affording opportunity to both sides to adduce
evidence and decide the matter on its own merits.
VI. Parties shall appear before the learned trial court on 21.09.2026
and further dates and future course shall be decided by the
learned trial Judge.
VIII. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
Checking your session…