Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ntl Lemnis India Pvt .Ltd vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2487 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2487 ALL
Judgement Date : 11 May, 2022

Allahabad High Court
Ntl Lemnis India Pvt .Ltd vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 19 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ntl Lemnis India Pvt .Ltd
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

This appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2021 which was passed by invoking the powers under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. by which complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the accused-opposite party no.2 has been acquitted in the said case.

The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 9.11.2016 titled as M/s NTL Lemnis India Limited through its authorized representative Vs M/s Asha Electricals was filed before the court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar which was under consideration and non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused who was arrested on 8.8.2018 and was produced before the trial court. On an application for bail, he was granted bail on the same day. Subsequently the matter was continuing before the said court but the complainant absented before it from 27.1.2021. On 8.3.2021, last opportunity was granted by the trial court for the purpose to appear on 21.05.2021. On 21.5.2021 and 14.6.2021, there was lock-down and the court did not function. Subsequently on 5.7.2021 there was request for adjournment which was allowed and the matter was adjourned for 5.8.2021. On 5.8.2021 the complainant did not appear and last opportunity was again granted by the trial court for the purpose to appear on 27.10.2021. Again on 27.10.2021, both the parties did not appear. The same continued and matter was fixed for 2.12.2021 on which date no one appeared. The trial court vide order dated 2.12.2021 dismissed the complaint stating that in spite of giving time to the complainant twice, there was no representation, hence acquitted the accused. In the said order it was observed that the examination of the complainant is pending since 13.3.2020, there has been no representation from the side of the parties and as such there was no purpose for proceeding with the matter.

Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 17.02.2022. As per office report dated 7.5.2022, notice has been served on the opposite party no.2 through C.J.M., Jaipur. The report to the said effect of C.M.M, Jaipur dated 2.3.2022 along with report of the concerned police station is on record. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

The complainant continued to absent himself. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed para no.22 and 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the appeal and has argued that the complainant-Company was being represented by a counsel who practices in Delhi and therefore he could not come on the dates due to travel restrictions. He states that learned court below ought to have granted further dates for hearing in the matter and should not have passed the impugned order.

Having heard learned counsels for the appellant and perusing the records, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 2.12.2021 passed by the trial court. The same has been passed after considering the fact that the complainant failed to appear in the matter since 13.3.2020. The grounds of the appellant that his counsel comes from Delhi could not be a valid ground for setting-aside the said order. It was the responsibility of the complainant to take care of the matter as and when listed before the court. I do not find it a fit case for any interference.

The present application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is rejected, accordingly.

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Order Date :- 11.5.2022

Gaurav

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter