OM PRAKASH NAYAK vs GOPAL RAM

[2026:RJ-JD:18134]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
07/04/2026
1. By way of the present criminal appeal, the appellant-
complainant has assailed the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Criinal
Original Case No.708/2024 whereby the complaint instituted
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came
to be dismissed for want of prosecution owing to non-appearance
of the complainant and his counsel on the date fixed. The
appellant contends that the impugned order, passed at a
preliminary stage of the proceedings, has the effect of non-suiting
the complainant without adjudication on merits and has
consequently resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:07:53 AM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:46 AM)

(2 of 6)
[2026:RJ-JD:18134] [CRLAS-142/2026]
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complaint was
founded on allegations that the respondent-accused, being
acquainted with the complainant and sharing family relations, had
borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on various occasions and,
towards discharge of the said liability, issued cheques including
cheque No.176440 dated 05.06.2024 for Rs.3,00,000/-. Upon
presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Funds
Insufficient”. Statutory notice was thereafter served, yet payment
was not made within the prescribed period, whereupon the
complaint came to be instituted in accordance with law.
2.1. The learned trial Court took cognizance, summoned the
accused, and upon his appearance, proceeded further in the
matter. The accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act was explained to the accused, who denied the
same and claimed trial. The matter was thereafter posted for
complainant’s evidence. On one of the earlier dates, the Presiding
Officer was on leave; subsequently, the matter was adjourned to
06.09.2025. On the said date, neither the complainant nor his
counsel remained present, whereupon the complaint was
dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence the instant appeal.
3 This Court has bestowed anxious consideration to the
material available on record and to the grounds urged in challenge
to the impugned order. Despite service, none has chosen to
appear on behalf of the respondent to contest the present appeal.
4. At the outset, it deserves notice that the appellant is not an
accused seeking indulgence after conviction, but a complainant
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:07:53 AM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:46 AM)

(3 of 6)
[2026:RJ-JD:18134] [CRLAS-142/2026]
who had invoked the criminal jurisdiction of the Court alleging
dishonour of a cheque involving a substantial monetary liability.
Such proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act are intended to enhance commercial credibility
and ensure sanctity of negotiable instruments. A complaint of this
nature cannot ordinarily be terminated in a casual or summary
manner unless the facts unmistakably justify such course.
4.1. The impugned order dated 06.09.2025, on perusal, reveals
that the complaint came to be dismissed on account of absence of
the complainant and his counsel on a solitary date. The order is
cryptic in nature and does not disclose any consideration as to
whether the complainant had been previously diligent, whether
the absence was deliberate, whether any prejudice would be
caused to the accused by granting one further opportunity, or
whether presence of the complainant was indispensable on that
particular date. The order is, thus, bereft of reasons and lacks the
attributes of a speaking judicial determination.
4.2. Judicial orders, howsoever brief, must reflect application of
mind. Particularly where dismissal of a complaint carries grave
civil and criminal consequences, the Court is expected to record
reasons demonstrating why such drastic course became
unavoidable. A mechanical order of dismissal, without examining
the surrounding circumstances, falls short of the standards
expected of judicial adjudication.
4.3. It is also significant that dismissal of a complaint for default
under the governing procedural law carries the consequence akin
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:07:53 AM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:46 AM)

(4 of 6)
[2026:RJ-JD:18134] [CRLAS-142/2026]
to acquittal of the accused. Therefore, an order of such nature
cannot be passed lightly or as a matter of routine. Once such
dismissal ensues, the complainant is rendered remediless at the
trial stage and is compelled to undertake appellate proceedings,
thereby multiplying litigation and delaying substantive justice.
4.4. In the present matter, the proceedings had already advanced
to the stage where the accused had appeared and plea had been
recorded. The matter was fixed for evidence. On an earlier
occasion, the Presiding Officer was on leave. There is nothing on
record to suggest that the complainant had persistently defaulted,
abused the process of law, or exhibited any intention to abandon
the prosecution. In such circumstances, one isolated non-
appearance ought not to have invited the extreme consequence of
dismissal.
4.5. Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act relate to dishonour of cheques issued in discharge of legally
enforceable debt or liability. Such matters affect commercial faith
and financial discipline. A claim involving cheque amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- cannot be lightly stifled without affording
reasonable opportunity to the complainant to substantiate his
case. The administration of justice is better served by adjudication
on merits rather than termination on technical default, unless
contumacious conduct is evident.
4.6. This Court further notices that a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in K.K. Construction v. Bhawan Singh Poswal & Ors.
(SBCRLA(SB) No.2765/2023 decided on 18.04.2024) has
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:07:53 AM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:46 AM)

(5 of 6)
[2026:RJ-JD:18134] [CRLAS-142/2026]
dealt with an analogous controversy and restored the complaint
where dismissal had ensued for non-prosecution. Principles of
judicial parity, institutional discipline, and consistency in approach
require that similarly situated matters receive similar treatment
unless distinguishable features exist. No such distinguishing
circumstance has been shown in the present case.
4.7. The criminal process is not meant to punish a litigant for
every inadvertent lapse of appearance, especially when the lis
pertains to recovery-backed penal liability under a special
enactment. Courts exist to decide controversies on merits. Hyper-
technical approaches that foreclose adjudication at threshold,
absent compelling reasons, must be eschewed.
4.8. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the learned
trial Court was not justified in dismissing the complaint for non-
prosecution in the facts obtaining herein. The impugned order,
being non-speaking, disproportionate, and productive of manifest
prejudice to the complainant, cannot be sustained in the eye of
law. Interests of justice demand restoration of the complaint to its
original number so that parties may be afforded an opportunity of
adjudication in accordance with law.
5. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh District Churu in Criminal
Original Case No.708/2024 is quashed and set aside. The learned
trial Court is directed to restore/re-register the complaint to its
original number and thereafter proceed further in accordance with
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:07:53 AM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:46 AM)

(6 of 6)
[2026:RJ-JD:18134] [CRLAS-142/2026]
law, expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the
learned trial Court on the date to be fixed by it.
5.1. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
194-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:07:53 AM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:46 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)