Allahabad High Court
Dhirendra Mohan Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 6 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:175878
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13716 of 2025
Dhirendra Mohan Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anil Mullick
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
(SL No.16)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Mullick, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Case No. 829 of 1993 (Mahindra vs. Prem Chand Sahgal and Others) under Sections 500, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., order dated 11.12.2024 issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against the applicant, order dated 20.12.2024 and order dated 24.02.2025 in Case No. 829 of 1993 passed by the learned Magistrate under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., P.S. - Baghpat, District- Baghpat, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.
3. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that one Mahindra Dev Sharma s/o Late Pt. Raghu Nath Singh, r/o Khekra, P.S.- Khekra, District- Baghpat, lodged a complaint case alleging therein that the accused persons had published a newspaper item on 30.04.1993 in relation to the fact that Rekha, d/o Mauja Ram, had eloped with one Pappu and the said victim was sent to Nari Niketan. Thereafter, regret was also published in the newspaper, subsequently. With regard to the aforesaid news item the said complainant, Mahindra Dev Sharma, filed a complaint case alleging therein that the aforesaid news item was published to defame him.
4. In the complaint case, summons were issued against the applicant herein as well along with other accused persons. The applicant herein filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11910 of 2005 before this Court and an interim order was granted on 07.12.2005, staying the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 829 of 1993. Subsequent thereto, on 17.09.2022, the trial court proceeded in the aforesaid complaint case in the light of the judgment and order dated 27.03.2018, passed by the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigating (Criminal Appeal No. 1375-1376 of 2013, wherein it was provided that the proceedings of any case cannot be kept stayed for more than six months and the bailable warrants were issued against the accused persons on 17.09.2022. Subsequent thereto, when the applicant herein did not appear despite repeated bailable warrants issued, on 25.09.2023, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against the applicants and the other accused person.
5. Pursuant to the said order, on 06.10.2023, two of the accused persons, namely Rakesh Mittal and Satish Gupta, appeared through counsel and they were released on submission of their personal bond. Against the remaining accused persons, the Non-Bailable Warrants continued. Subsequent thereto, another accused persons, namely Modi Lal reported to be dead. Accordingly, the proceedings against him were abated. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.12.2023, the proceedings of Non-Bailable Warrants as well as Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the applicant and other non appearing accused persons.
6. On 20.12.2023, the death of Maujalal, Premchandra Singhle, Shravrap, Atul Kumar was reported. Accordingly the proceedings were abated against them and 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings were continued against the applicant herein. On 03.02.2024, the applicants herein filed an application under Section 256 Cr.P.C., alleging therein that since the complainant himself has died, then, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal and the complaint is required to be closed. Despite the aforesaid application, vide order dated 01.03.2024, the trial court proceeded to issue 83 Cr.P.C. proceedings against applicant herein.
7. Against the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2024, the applicants herein filed a Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2024, before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge- Baghpat. Vide order dated 19.09.2024, the said revision was allowed and the order dated 01.03.2024 was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order. Thereupon, vide order dated 16.11.2024, the trial court has rejected the application under Section 256 Cr.P.C., holding therein that since the process was already issued against the applicant herein and the applicant did not appear before the court despite the continuous process issued against him for a long period, therefore, merely because the complainant had died the proceedings cannot be dropped against the applicant herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant herein.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the notices were issued in the criminal revision to the complainant. The son of the complainant appeared before the Revisional Court and has submitted the Death Certificate which has been duly recorded in the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court dated 19.09.2024 and he has not filed any application to prosecute the complainant on behalf of his father. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case the complainant has died and no one has moved any application to prosecute the accused person despite due knowledge. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of Section 256 Cr.P.C., the complaint case cannot proceed any further. Therefore, the proceedings of Non-Bailable Warrants, 82 Cr.P.C. and 83 Cr.P.C. are unsustainable from the moment it is reported to the court that the complainant had died. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire proceedings of the complaint case are required to be set-aside in view of the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the proceedings of Non-Bailable Warrants and 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the applicant much prior to his filing of application under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no illegality in the Non-Bailable Warrants as well as 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings initiated against the applicant herein. Despite the aforesaid proceedings he deliberately did not appear before the court and even after having knowledge of the Non-Bailable Warrants and 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings he did not appear, rather he filed an application under Section 256 Cr.P.C. through his counsel. Since, there was no illegality in the initial proceedings of Non-Bailable Warrants issued and 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings, it was his duty to appear before the trial court and then move a fresh application under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Since, he has failed to appear before the trial court, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the trial court.
10. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The brief facts of the case are already noted hereinabove. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to take note of Section 256 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
"S. 256 Non-appearance or death of complainant
(i) If the summons has been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day;
Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.
(2) The provisions of Sub-Section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death."
11. According to the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C., if after issuance of summons the complainant did not appear before the court, the Magistrate shall not extend anything contained in the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure which shall acquit the accused persons, unless the trial court finds it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings for some other reasons. Sub-section(2) of Section 256 Cr.P.C. applies the aforesaid provisions in case of death of the complainant as well.
12. In the instant case, admittedly the complainant has died much earlier and no one had appeared on behalf of the complainant. Despite having the knowledge, the son of the complainant who appeared in the criminal revision submitted the Death Certificate, however, he did not move any application to prosecute the complaint on behalf of his father. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C. attract in the instant case at the moment when it was reported to the court that the complainant has died. Thus, the proceedings of the complaint case are required to be dropped and the accused is entitled for acquittal due to the non appearance of the complainant due to his death. Thus, when the proceedings of the complaint are not sustainable in the eyes of law from the moment the death is reported to the court, any further proceeding asking the accused persons to appear before the trial court, would be against the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C.
13. Thus, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings in order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Case No. 829 of 1993 (Mahindra vs. Prem Chand Sahgal and Others) under Sections 500, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., order dated 11.12.2024 issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against the applicant, order dated 20.12.2024 and order dated 24.02.2025 in Case No. 829 of 1993 passed by the learned Magistrate under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., P.S. - Baghpat, District- Baghpat, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, are hereby quashed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
October 6, 2025
Shubham Arya
