Date of the Judgment: March 1, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1872
Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manoj Misra
Can a criminal complaint be dismissed solely for the complainant’s absence, even after their evidence has been recorded? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the dismissal of complaints under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court clarified the circumstances under which a Magistrate can proceed with a case despite the complainant’s absence, emphasizing the importance of considering the evidence already on record. This judgment, authored by Justice Manoj Misra, clarifies the interpretation of Section 256 CrPC.
Case Background
The appellant, M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited, filed eight complaints against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, related to cheque bounce cases. Three complaints were filed in 2011, three in 2013, and two in 2017. In three of these cases (Complaint Case Nos. 621742/16, 621743/16, and 621744/16), the complainant underwent cross-examination. On October 26, 2017, the accused’s counsel stated that the cross-examination from these three cases would apply to the remaining complaints. Consequently, the complainant’s evidence was closed, and the cases were scheduled for defense evidence. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC to summon additional witnesses. While this application was pending, the complainant’s counsel allegedly misled them, leading to their absence in court. As a result, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaints on January 25, 2019, due to the complainant’s non-appearance.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011 | Three complaints filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. |
| 2013 | Three complaints filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. |
| 2017 | Two complaints filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. |
| October 26, 2017 | Cross-examination of the complainant completed in three cases; statement made to adopt cross-examination in other cases; complainant’s evidence closed; cases listed for defence evidence; application under Section 311 CrPC filed. |
| January 25, 2019 | Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaints for non-appearance of the complainant. |
| November 7, 2019 | Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant’s petitions against the Magistrate’s order. |
| March 1, 2023 | Supreme Court of India sets aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the dismissal of the complaints before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the petitions on November 7, 2019. The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in question is Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the non-appearance of the complainant. The provision states:
“256. Non-appearance or death of complainant.—(1) 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.”
The proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC is crucial. It allows a Magistrate to proceed with a case even if the complainant is absent, provided the complainant is represented by a pleader, a prosecuting officer, or if the Magistrate believes the complainant’s personal attendance is unnecessary. This is particularly relevant when the complainant’s evidence has already been recorded.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the Magistrate erred by dismissing the complaints for non-prosecution, failing to consider the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC.
- The appellant contended that since the complainant’s statement and cross-examination were already on record, there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case on merits, even in the complainant’s absence.
- The appellant submitted that the High Court also failed to appreciate that the complainant’s evidence was already on record and the matter could have been decided on merits.
- The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand [(1998) 1 SCC 687], S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar [(2008) 4 SCC 67], and S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) By His LRs & Others [(2008) 5 SCC 535] to support its position.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that Section 256(1) of the CrPC mandates the Magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant does not appear on the designated day.
- The respondents submitted that since the complainant was absent while their application under Section 311 of the CrPC was pending, the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaints.
- The respondents contended that even if there was a technical defect in dismissing the complaints, it should be treated as an order of acquittal under Section 256(1) of the CrPC.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of Complaints | Magistrate erred by dismissing the complaints for non-prosecution, failing to consider the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC. | Appellant |
| Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaints due to the complainant’s absence. | Respondent | |
| Evidence on Record | Complainant’s statement and cross-examination were on record, sufficient to proceed on merits. | Appellant |
| Absence of the complainant during the pendency of application under Section 311 CrPC justifies dismissal. | Respondent | |
| Interpretation of Section 256 CrPC | Proviso to Section 256(1) allows the Magistrate to proceed even in the complainant’s absence. | Appellant |
| Interpretation of Section 256 CrPC | Section 256(1) mandates acquittal if the complainant does not appear. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether, in the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the criminal complaints for non-appearance of the complainant even though the statement of the complainant had been recorded and, vide order of the learned Magistrate dated 26.10.2017, the complainant’s evidence was closed with a direction to list the matter for recording of defence evidence as also for consideration of application under Section 311 of the Code filed by the complainant.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaints for non-appearance of the complainant? | No. | The Magistrate failed to consider the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC, which allows the court to proceed if the complainant’s presence is not necessary, especially when their evidence has been recorded. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand [(1998) 1 SCC 687] – Supreme Court: Discussed the purpose of Section 256 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it is meant to deter dilatory tactics by complainants but does not mandate acquittal if the complainant is absent after their evidence is recorded.
- S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar [(2008) 4 SCC 67] – Supreme Court: Held that when the prosecution has closed its case, the court should pass a judgment on the merits of the matter, not dismiss it for the complainant’s absence.
- S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) By His LRs & Others [(2008) 5 SCC 535] – Supreme Court: This case was cited in support of the proposition that the matter should be decided on merits when the prosecution has closed its case.
The Court also considered Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand [(1998) 1 SCC 687] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the purpose of Section 256 CrPC and clarified that it does not mandate acquittal if the complainant is absent after their evidence is recorded. |
| S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar [(2008) 4 SCC 67] | Supreme Court of India | Held that when the prosecution has closed its case, the court should pass a judgment on the merits of the matter. |
| S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) By His LRs & Others [(2008) 5 SCC 535] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the proposition that the matter should be decided on merits when the prosecution has closed its case. |
| Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Indian Parliament | The court interpreted the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Code to determine if Magistrate could dispense with the attendance of the complainant. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Magistrate erred by dismissing the complaints for non-prosecution, failing to consider the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC. | Accepted. The Court held that the Magistrate should have considered the proviso to Section 256(1), which allows proceeding with the case even if the complainant is absent, especially when their evidence is recorded. |
| Complainant’s statement and cross-examination were on record, sufficient to proceed on merits. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the recorded evidence of the complainant was sufficient to proceed with the case on merits. |
| Section 256(1) mandates acquittal if the complainant does not appear. | Rejected. The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 256(1) allows the Magistrate to dispense with the complainant’s attendance and proceed if their presence is not necessary. |
| Absence of the complainant during the pendency of application under Section 311 CrPC justifies dismissal. | Rejected. The Court held that the Magistrate could have rejected the application under Section 311 of the Code and proceeded with the case based on the available evidence. |
The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaints solely for the complainant’s non-appearance, especially since the complainant’s evidence had already been recorded. The Court emphasized the importance of the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC, which allows the Magistrate to proceed with the case if the complainant’s personal attendance is not necessary. The Court referred to the decisions in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand [(1998) 1 SCC 687], S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar [(2008) 4 SCC 67], and S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) By His LRs & Others [(2008) 5 SCC 535], which clarified that a case should be decided on its merits when the prosecution has closed its case.
The Court stated: “A plain reading of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 256 would indicate that where the Magistrate is satisfied that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, he can dispense with the attendance of the complainant and proceed with the case. Such a situation may arise where complainant’s/prosecution’s evidence has been recorded and to decide the case on merits, complainant’s presence is not necessary.”
The Court further noted: “when the prosecution has closed its case and the accused has been examined under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court was required to pass a judgment on merit of the matter.”
The Court also observed: “What was the purpose of including a provision like Section 247 in the old Code (or Section 256 in the new Code). It affords some deterrence against dilatory tactics on the part of a complainant who set the law in motion through his complaint.”
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate, restoring the proceedings to the stage where the complaints were dismissed. The Court directed that the prosecution should proceed from that point.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the interpretation of Section 256 of the CrPC, specifically the proviso to sub-section (1). The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 256 is to prevent dilatory tactics by complainants, not to automatically acquit the accused when the complainant is absent after their evidence has been recorded. The Court’s reasoning was influenced by the fact that the complainant’s evidence was already on record, and there was no need for their personal presence to proceed with the case. The Court also relied on previous judgments that underscored the importance of deciding cases on their merits when the prosecution has closed its evidence.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 256 CrPC | 40% |
| Importance of deciding case on merits | 30% |
| Complainant’s evidence already on record | 20% |
| Prevention of dilatory tactics | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Key Takeaways
- A Magistrate cannot dismiss a criminal complaint solely for the complainant’s absence if their evidence has already been recorded.
- The proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC allows a Magistrate to dispense with the complainant’s attendance and proceed with the case if their presence is not necessary.
- The purpose of Section 256 is to prevent dilatory tactics by complainants, not to automatically acquit the accused if the complainant is absent after their evidence is recorded.
- When the prosecution has closed its case, the court should pass a judgment on the merits of the matter.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate. The proceedings were restored to their original number on the file of the learned Magistrate, and the prosecution was directed to proceed from the stage where the complaints were dismissed.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a criminal complaint should not be dismissed solely for the complainant’s absence if their evidence has already been recorded, and the Magistrate must consider the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC before dismissing the complaint. This judgment reinforces the principle that cases should be decided on their merits, especially when the prosecution has presented its evidence. This clarifies the interpretation of Section 256 CrPC and reinforces the principles laid down in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand [(1998) 1 SCC 687], S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar [(2008) 4 SCC 67], and S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) By His LRs & Others [(2008) 5 SCC 535].
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited vs. M/s. Rajwant Singh & Others clarifies the correct procedure for handling complaints where the complainant is absent after recording their evidence. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate should not dismiss a complaint solely for the complainant’s absence but should consider the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC and proceed with the case on its merits. This judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that cases are decided based on the available evidence and not merely on the presence or absence of the complainant.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Child Category: Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Child Category: Dismissal of Complaint
Child Category: Non-Appearance of Complainant
Child Category: Evidence on Record
FAQ
Q: Can a criminal case be dismissed if the complainant is absent?
A: Not always. If the complainant’s evidence has already been recorded, the court can proceed with the case even if the complainant is absent, as per the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC.
Q: What is Section 256 of the CrPC?
A: Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the non-appearance of the complainant in a criminal case. It generally states that if the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate may acquit the accused. However, the proviso allows the Magistrate to proceed if the complainant’s presence is not necessary.
Q: What should a Magistrate do if the complainant is absent after their evidence has been recorded?
A: The Magistrate should consider the proviso to Section 256(1) of the CrPC, which allows the court to dispense with the complainant’s presence and proceed with the case if their personal attendance is not necessary. The Magistrate should decide the case on its merits based on the evidence already recorded.
Q: What if an application under Section 311 of CrPC is pending?
A: The Court held that the Magistrate could have rejected the application under Section 311 of the Code and proceeded with the case based on the available evidence.