In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the case involving the restoration of a criminal matter for the interest of justice has been decided. This judgment impacts the ongoing legal proceedings regarding a financial dispute, bringing attention to the need for equitable resolution. The court’s decision aims to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in legal proceedings, benefiting both parties involved in the case.
Facts
- Complainant and accused are distant relatives.
- Accused acquitted from charges under section 138 of the N.I. Act.
- Complainant and his advocate were absent during the proceedings since 2019.
- Trial court recorded plea for evidence of the complainant before their absence.
- The case was adjourned multiple times after the plea of the accused was recorded on 14.12.2018.
- The complainant lent Rs.4,50,000 to the accused, who issued a cheque dated 29.12.2016 for repayment.
- The cheque was dishonored due to ‘funds insufficient’.
- The court dismissed the case for non-prosecution, leading to the challenge before the higher court.
- A complaint was filed before the competent court and the process was initiated.
- The accused appeared in court on 07.04.2017 and the case was adjourned for the cross-examination of the complainant.
Issue
- The Court has the authority to adjourn a hearing if deemed necessary.
- In cases where an adjournment is granted, the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused.
- This ensures that justice is not denied to the parties involved in the case.
Arguments
- The complainant and his advocate were unable to appear before the trial court as the advocate had passed away in 2017.
- The complainant had no knowledge about the stage of the trial due to this situation.
- Advocate Mr. Kumar Trivedi argues that the impugned order was passed due to the death of the complainant’s advocate, necessitating the restoration of the criminal case for the interest of justice.
- Mr. Kumar Trivedi requests to quash the acquittal order and remand the matter for a decision on merits before the trial court.
- The learned trial court issued process on 07.04.2017 and noted the presence of the learned advocate for the accused and the accused on the same day.
- The accused remained absent on multiple dates leading to the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants against him.
- The private complaint with allegations was filed before the learned trial court on 22.02.2017.
- Learned advocate Mr. Hardeep Mehta contends that the complainant’s lack of vigilance justifies the trial court’s acquittal order.
- Mr. Hardeep Mehta prays for confirmation of the trial court’s order of acquittal and dismissal of the appeal.
Analysis
- The learned trial court observed both the complainant and the accused were absent on many dates.
- The Magistrate has the power to proceed with the case even if the complainant’s personal attendance is not necessary on a particular day.
- If the situation does not warrant an adjournment, the Court can dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused.
- However, unnecessarily axing down the complaint when the complainant’s presence was not required may not be a proper exercise of power.
- The record shows instances where the accused was absent on specific dates while the complainant remained present on others.
Decision
- The Court has allowed the application and directed the trial court to decide the matter after giving both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence.
- Considering the pending status of the trial since 2017, the trial court is directed to make a decision within 8 months.
- Both parties are instructed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.
- As a result of the above directions, the appeal has been allowed.
Case Title: KHWAJA NIJAMUDIN S. CHISTEE Vs. WASIM ALARKHA BHARUCHA
Case Number: R/CR.A/1300/2024
