[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
State Bank Of India Thr Its Chief Manager ... vs Jayesh Raghunath Guldekar on 8 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13857
Judgment appa898.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPA] No. 898/2025.
(CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.4290/2025.)
State Bank of India,
through its Chief Manager,
RACPC Branch, Kingsway,
Nagpur. ... APPLICANT.
VERSUS
Jayesh Raghunath Guldekar,
Aged about Major, resident of
Food Corporation of India,
Old Complex, Building Unit No.3,
Ajani, Nagpur. ... NON-APPLICANT.
---------------------------------
Mr. B. Mohata, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
Ms H.D. Jamgade, Advocate for the Non-applicant.
----------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 08, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Leave granted.
Admit.
Rgd.
Judgment appa898.25
By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the
matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the
complaint filed by the appellant came to be dismissed for want of
prosecution under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
vide order below Exh.1 dated 29.04.2025, resulting into acquittal of
the non-applicant/respondent for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits
that admittedly the case was instituted in the year 2020, however, due
to Covid, the appellant could not pursue the complaint. On
28.02.2025, the complainant was present, however, its Advocate was
absent. The matter was kept on 29.04.2025, and on that date, the
complainant so also the Advocate was absent, and therefore, submit
that merely complainant or its Advocate being absent on few
occasions by itself is no ground for dismissal of the complaint under
Section 256 of the Code.
3. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the
Rgd.
Judgment appa898.25
respondent/accused submits that the cheque is for Rs.19,000/-. She
vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that the statutory period
provided under Section 138 to decide the matter within a stipulated
period, would be frustrated if such complaints are entertained.
Perusal of the roznama would reveal that the complainant is
continuously absent and therefore, no leniency can be shown. She
further invited my attention to the roznama which shows that on
several dates the complainant was absent. Considering the above
facts, she submits that the appellant does not deserves any leniency
and it is his own creation, therefore, appeal be dismissed.
4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that admittedly the case was instituted in the year 2020. The order is
passed in the year 2025. On perusal of the roznama it appears that on
several occasions the complainant/appellant was present. However,
on several occasions, the complainant was also absent. It further
appears that on some dates the matter was transferred from one Court
to another. It also appears that on one or two occasions, the Court was
vacant. It is necessary to mention here that before passing of the
Rgd.
Judgment appa898.25
dismissal order by the trial Court on 29.04.2025, the complainant was
present on previous date i.e. 28.02.2025 and its Advocate was absent.
Admittedly on next date i.e. on 29.04.2025, both the complainant as
well as its Advocate, as also the accused and his Advocate were absent.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my
opinion it is necessary to crystallize the rights of the parties on the
basis of merits. It appears that the Court below has taken a hyper
technical view while dismissing the complaint. No doubt, if the
complainant is not cooperating with the trial Court, in that case one
can understand if the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.
However, it appears from roznama that on several occasions, the
complainant was present.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Shaikh Akbar Talab .vrs. A.G.
Pushpakaran & Another (2018 ALL MR (Cri) 1208), and referred to
the observations made in Paragraph No.14, which are as follows:
"14. In above referred case cited (supra) the
complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of CrPC
by the learned Magistrate due to absence of the
Rgd.
Judgment appa898.25
complainant. It is held that principles of natural
justice are required to be followed by giving an
opportunity to the complainant to prosecute the
complaint on merits as well as an opportunity is to
be given to the accused to contest the complaint on
merits. Therefore, the matters were restored by
quashing and setting aside the impugned orders."
Upon perusal of the record and in light of the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Shaikh Akbar Talab (supra), I am of
the considered view that the learned Trial Court ought not to have
dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution, nor should have
acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the order
impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter is
required to be restored to its original position for its disposal in
accordance with law. The appellant is ready and willing to lead
evidence in next week i.e. on 22.12.2025, failing which the Court
below may pass appropriate orders. However, this order shall be
Rgd.
Judgment appa898.25
subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent by the
appellant. The costs be deposited with the trial Court and after its
deposit the respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the same. In
view of above, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the 10th Joint
Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case
No,.10851/2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is restored back to the file of 10 th Joint Civil
Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Nagpur, for its disposal in accordance with law.
(iv) This order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-
by the appellant, which the appellant shall deposit with
the trial Court within next 10 working days. If the costs
are not deposited within the stipulated time the court
below may pass appropriate order. If the costs are
deposited, the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the
same.
JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/12/2025 17:46:29
