M.Total Instruments Solutions Vs M/S.Ashtapadi Foundation… — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

M.Total Instruments Solutions Vs M/S.Ashtapadi Foundation… — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 31.08.2021 in S.T.C.No.985 of 2017 set aside; complaint restored on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Coimbatore; prosecution to proceed from the stage of the order of acquittal/dismissal; Trial Court directed to complete the trial preferably within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in S.T.C.No.985 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Coimbatore, dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution (order of acquittal), is liable to be set aside and the private complaint restored. +2 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed in S.T.C.No.985 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore is set aside and the complaint in S.T.C.No.985 of 2017 is restored on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Coimbatore; the prosecution shall now proceed from the stage when the order of acquittal/dismissal of the complaint was passed.

Ratio / Principle

In a private complaint sufficient copies for the accused must be presented along with the complaint, hence adjourning the case for preparation of copies does not arise; the absent period of the complainant was predominantly during Covid-19 when there were restrictions on the functioning of Courts; the notice in D.No.854/2021 dated 16.04.2021 lost its significance and purpose as the second spell of Covid-19 surfaced from 07.05.2021; dismissing the complaint on 31.08.2021 by referring to that notice is not proper, and in all fairness fresh notice could have been issued to the complainant.

Key takeaways

Admittedly the trial is yet to commence and the case was not adjourned for the absence of the appellant/complainant; dismissing the complaint under Section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. amounts to short-circuiting the proceedings and not allowing the case to reach its logical end; real and substantial justice is delivered only after a full-fledged trial.ratio¶100
Since the respondents/accused are evading service of notice and did not appear before this Court despite notice, the Trial Court is directed to give priority and preference, issue notice and take coercive action if required, not give long adjournments, and ensure the trial is completed preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶105

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (Crl.A.No.717 of 2021) under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against order of acquittal — complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.985 of 2017 dismissed for non-prosecution by Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Coimbatore on 31.08.2021 — complainant's absence predominantly during the Covid-19 period when Courts functioned under restrictions — case stood adjourned for preparation of copies and for appearance of respondents/accused, not for the complainant's absence — notice dated 16.04.2021 (D.No.854/2021) lost its significance and purpose as the second spell of Covid-19 surfaced from 07.05.2021 — in all fairness fresh notice could have been issued to the complainant — trial yet to commence — dismissal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. amounts to short-circuiting the proceedings; real and substantial justice only after full-fledged trial — impugned order set aside and complaint restored; prosecution to proceed from the stage of dismissal — Trial Court to give priority, avoid long adjournments and complete trial preferably within six months — Criminal Appeal allowed; Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to pay remuneration to the Legal Aid Counsel.