Allahabad High Court
RADHA GOVINDversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The revisional court’s exercise of discretion in setting aside the trial court’s dismissal under Section 204 CrPC was proper and not perverse, so the order is upheld.
Summary
The petition filed by Radha Govind sought to set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 11‑12‑2023 which had restored a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant had been absent for about three years without filing any exemption application, leading the trial court to dismiss the case under Section 204(4). The revisional court, however, set aside that dismissal and directed the trial court to give the complainant another opportunity to prosecute the case. The petitioner argued that the revisional court erred in granting relief to a negligent litigant, amounting to an abuse of process, while the respondent contended that the discretion to revive a case in the interest of justice was within the revisional court’s jurisdiction. The High Court held that the revisional court had properly exercised its discretion and that its order was not perverse. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to dispose of the matter within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the revisional court can set aside a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint under Section 204 CrPC for non‑prosecution when the complainant has been absent for an extended period.
- Whether granting an opportunity to a negligent litigant amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
- Whether the exercise of discretion by the revisional court is reviewable under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 204
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- Section 204 CrPC
- non‑prosecution
- revisional jurisdiction
- abuse of process
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4016 of 2024
Radha Govind
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad
Tiwari, Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Vineet
Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Harish Chandra Mishra
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA
for the State are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside
the judgment & order dated 11.12.23 passed by Additional Session Judge
Court No. 1, Jhansi in Crl. Revision No. 144/2023, Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs.
State of U.P. & another, which was filed against dismissing the Complaint
Case No. 5739/2014 (Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. Radha Govind Gupta), u/s
138 N.I. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No.
5739 of 2014 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was instituted by the
respondent against him and summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. were issued
by the learned trial court. However, the respondent/complainant remained
absent continuously for about three years without filing any exemption
application and failed to comply with the procedure contemplated under
Section 204 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the complaint case was dismissed under
Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. for non-prosecution and for failure to take effective
steps. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2023, the respondent filed
Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2023. The learned revisional court allowed the
said criminal revision, set aside the order dated 07.04.2023 and remanded
the matter back to the learned trial court with a direction to restore the
complaint case and proceed further in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent remained absent
continuously for three years and failed to take effective steps. However, the
learned revisional court wrongly observed that only one last opportunity had
A227 No. 4016 of 2024
2
been granted to the respondent for taking steps, whereas the order-sheet
clearly reveals that at least six opportunities had been granted by the learned
trial court. It was further submitted that granting relief to a negligent litigant
amounts to abuse of the process of law. A litigant who remained absent for
such a long period was not entitled to any discretionary relief from the
revisional court. Therefore, the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned
revisional court is perverse and liable to be set aside.
5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned
revisional court is innocuous in nature and, by the said order, only an
opportunity has been granted to the aggrieved complainant to take steps as
directed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. There may be various circumstances
preventing a litigant from prosecuting his case diligently. Therefore, superior
courts are well within their jurisdiction to interfere where a litigant loses his
case for non-prosecution and to grant him an opportunity to prosecute the
case diligently.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The
impugned order reveals that the learned revisional court exercised its judicial
discretion in setting aside the order dated 07.04.2023 passed by the learned
trial court and in providing an opportunity to the respondent to take steps as
directed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The exercise of such judicial discretion
by the learned revisional court does not call for any interference by this
Court.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 11.12.2023 is upheld. The petition is
dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the case
expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
May 12, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…