Bombay High Court
Nav Bharat Press, Nagpur Thr. Its ... vs Sanjay Ladwan on 25 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12871
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2013
...
NAV BHARAT PRESS, NAGPUR,
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SNEH NAGAR,
CHATRAPATI SQUARE, NAGPUR,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
SHRI MAHESH PRASAD GOKUL CHANDRA SARANGI,
AGED 39 YEARS, OCCU: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: FRIENDS COLONY, KATOL ROAD NAGPUR.
... APPELLANT
--VERSUS--
1] SANJAY LADWAN,
AGED MAJOR, OCCU: BUSINESS,
PROPRIETOR OF GENIUS GROUP,
1ST FLOOR SHREE COMPLEX,
INFRONT OF MARUTI SHOWROOM SATURNA,
AMRAVATI, DISTRICT: AMRAVATI.
2] THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER RAJAPETH,
AMRAVATI.
... RESPONDENTS
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.P. Salunkhe, Advocate for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though
the respondent No.1 is served, none appears on his behalf.
2. Admit.
3. The present appeal is filed for quashing and setting
aside the order dated 23/07/2012 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, in Summary Criminal
Case No. 17193/2010, whereby the learned Magistrate
dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution, resulting in
the acquittal of the accused.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
4. Brief facts of the case are that:
The appellant is a company duly incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of printing
and publishing newspapers and periodicals, and also
undertakes publication of advertisements for its clients. In the
ordinary course of business, the appellant published
advertisements provided by accused No.1, who is stated to be
carrying on business under the name "Genius Group." The
appellant received advertisement materials from the accused on
20/09/2010, 29/09/2010, and 15/10/2010. Corresponding
bills were raised, and an amount of Rs. 39,675/- became due
and payable. Towards part payment, accused No.1 issued a
cheque dated 03/10/2010 for Rs.28,875/- drawn on HDFC
Bank, Shankar Nagar Branch, Nagpur. The cheque, when
presented, was dishonoured for the reason "insufficient funds."
The appellant immediately informed the accused of the
dishonour, but the accused failed to make the requisite
payment. The appellant thereafter issued a statutory notice
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
dated 02/11/2010 under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Despite due service, the accused did not comply. Consequently,
the appellant instituted Criminal Complaint No.17193/2010
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. The learned
Magistrate ordered issuance of summons on 21/03/2011, and
the appellant duly paid process fees. The summons, however,
returned unserved as the accused was not found at the given
address. The appellant thereafter sought verification of the
correct address through its Amravati office. Before the appellant
could furnish the updated address, the Trial Court recorded
that no steps were taken and, on 23/07/2012, proceeded to
dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution and acquitted the
accused. On 23/07/2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Nagpur, in Summary Criminal Case No. 17193/2010,
passed the following order:
" The complainant is absent through called up to
this 4.00 pm. No steps are taken in spite of the fact that the
specific order is passed on last date the complainant is
reluctant to take any steps and proceed further. Hence the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. The accused
is acquitted."
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint and acquitting
respondent No.1 on the ground that no steps were taken for
service, without appreciating the appellant's bona fide efforts to
secure the accurate and complete address of the respondent
No.1. After the summons returned unserved, due to an
incomplete address, the appellant immediately instructed its
Amravati office to verify the correct address, and the process of
obtaining the same was already underway. However, before
this could be completed, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the
impugned order, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair
opportunity to effect service. It is further submitted that the
appellant subsequently learnt that the respondent No.1
continues to operate his business from the address mentioned
in the complaint but had been deliberately avoiding service.
Thus, the Trial Court's observation that the appellant was
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
reluctant to take steps is incorrect and contrary to the material
on record. The appellant had specifically brought to the Court's
notice that additional time was required for address
verification, yet the Trial Court mechanically dismissed the
complaint. The learned counsel also submits that although the
Trial Court recorded failure to take steps, during the pendency
of this appeal the appellant was on the verge of securing the
correct address, and the respondent has now been duly served
with notice in this proceeding. This clearly demonstrates that
the appellant has been prosecuting the matter diligently and in
good faith. In these circumstances, the impugned order, being
premature, harsh, and passed without affording reasonable
opportunity, has resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant.
It is therefore prayed that the order of dismissal and acquittal
be quashed and set aside, and that the appellant be granted a
fair opportunity to prosecute the complaint on merits.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Shaikh Akbar Talab
VS Shri 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 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."
7. Upon perusal of the record and in light of the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Shri 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.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
8. The record shows that the appellant had been
diligently prosecuting the complaint and had immediately
initiated steps to obtain the correct address of the accused after
the summons returned unserved. While this verification process
was still underway through the appellant's Amravati office, the
Trial Court, without allowing reasonable time for its
completion, dismissed the complaint on 23/07/2012 on the
ground that steps for service were not taken. The order was
passed around 4:00 p.m., and the appellant promptly sought
recall of the dismissal on the same day, but even that
application was rejected for want of maintainability. During the
pendency of the present appeal, the respondent has now been
duly served, demonstrating the appellant's bona fide and
continuous efforts. The impugned order thus appears
mechanical and has deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity
to proceed on merits.
9. A mere lapse in not furnishing the corrected address
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
within a short span could not justify dismissal of the complaint
and acquittal of the accused. The appellant had been actively
attempting to verify the address and immediately sought
restoration of the complaint after its dismissal, but was denied
the same. The subsequent service of notice in this appeal
further shows that the appellant was not negligent. By
overlooking these circumstances and dismissing the complaint
without granting reasonable opportunity, the Trial Court has
effectively prevented adjudication on merits, causing undue
prejudice to the appellant.
10. Considering the circumstances on record, including
the appellant's continuous and bona fide efforts to prosecute
the complaint, it would be just and proper to afford a
reasonable opportunity to the appellant to pursue the matter on
merits. The dismissal of the complaint by the Trial Court solely
on the ground of non-service, without granting sufficient time
to complete verification of the accused's address and without
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
considering the appellant's prompt application to recall the
order, reflects a hyper-technical approach inconsistent with
principles of natural justice. The observations of this Court in
the case of Shri Shaikh Akbar Talab (supra) are relevant,
wherein it was held that principles of natural justice require
giving the complainant an opportunity to prosecute the
complaint on merits, and similarly, an opportunity must be
afforded to the accused to contest the complaint. The principles
of natural justice are a cardinal aspect of law and form the
backbone of judicial process. The right to be heard and to
present one's case are statutory incorporations of these
principles, and the Trial Court ought not to have taken a harsh
and technical view by dismissing the complaint for want of
prosecution. For the reasons stated above, I deem it appropriate
to allow the appeal. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
(ii) The impugned order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, in
Summary Criminal Case No.17193/2010, dated
23/07/2012 dismissing the said complaint in
default under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and consequently acquitting the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, is quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Summary Criminal Case No.17193/2010,
stands restored to file at its original stage and the
matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court
to decide the same afresh, on its own merits.
(iv) The parties are directed to remain
present before the Learned Trial Court on
18/12/2025.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-144-2013
(v) The appellant shall proceed with the
matter without seeking any adjournment and shall
co-operate with the Trial Court. The Trial Court
may grant adjournment in exceptional
circumstances.
(vi) The above order is subject to payment of
costs of Rs.1,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by
the appellant in the Trial Court. The said cost shall
be paid to the respondent.
(vii) The appeal is disposed of, accordingly.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
