HARDIK MANHARLAL KOTECHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Samani, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the present appeals have been filed against the order passed by the learned 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot on 12/3/2022 dismissing the complaints being Criminal Cases no.2208/17, 2207/17 and 2206/17 respectively under Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ' Cr.P.C .') in a Special Sitting which was held in the Lok Adalat and submits that in the Special Sitting, the matter was placed and the advocate and the complainant were found absent and therefore, the learned Trial Court Judge found that the complainant was not interested in proceeding with the matter. Mr. Samani submits that because of the internal bar dispute, the lawyer on record was debarred from practice for a period of one year and this fact was known to the Court concerned. Apart from that, Mr. Samani submits that about 4 matters were instituted by the present appellant against the accused and in Criminal Case no.1387 of 2017, the respondent was convicted, which itself suggests on record the vigilance and the interest of the complainant to pursue the matter. Mr. Samani submits that the learned Trial Court Judge was not right in observing that the complainant was remaining absent during the trial proceedings and Sec. 256 of the Cr.P.C. makes a provision to even grant exemption to the complainant when he is represented by a lawyer on record.

(2.) While countering the same, Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 states that the learned Trial Court Judge has considered the conduct of the complainant to dismiss the matters and thus, submits that the order under Sec. 256 of the Cr.P.C. would necessary follow with acquittal of the accused and hence, submits that there is no ground to interfere in the matters.

(3.) In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 687, the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to the provisions of sec. 256 of Cr.P.C. in context of the complaint filed under sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, has made observations as under: