Magistrate's Power U/s 256 CrPC To Acquit Shall Be Based On Definite Conclusion That Complainant No Longer Desires To Prosecute Complaint: Kerala HC

On finding the acquittal order issued by the First-Class Magistrate unreasonable and irregular, the Kerala High Court held that the Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to a later date and directed the appellant to be positively present for trial.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed that “the power of the Magistrate under Section 256 CrPC to acquit an accused should be exercised judicially, based on a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint. The power is not to be indiscriminately exercised whimsically and mechanically for the statistical purposes of removing a docket from its rack as it undermines the cause of justice”.

“Instead, the judicious course would be to direct the complaint to appear for the hearing, if it is imperative, and decide whether the drastic step of acquittal is to be passed in case he fails to appear”, added the Bench.

Advocate K.B. Gangesh appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Seetha. S appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the Petitioner had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class alleging the first respondent to have committed the offense under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was referred to the Adalat and was later returned to the Court. The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on the ground that the appellant was regularly absent. Now, the Petitioner approached the Bench to seek relief as he was not afforded an opportunity to explain the reason for his absence by the court.

After considering the submission, the Bench found from timeline of the dates and events narrated in the memorandum of revision petition, that even though the complaint was scheduled for trial, it was referred to the Adalat and was later returned to the Court as the dispute was not settled.

Nonetheless, on the same date the complaint was posted, the order of acquittal was passed, added the Bench.

The Bench further observed that on the date of posting of complaint, neither was the complaint posted for trial nor an order directing the appellant to be present.

Therefore, the Bench emphasized that the Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to a later date and directed the appellant to be positively present for trial.

“Without adopting the above reasonable course and providing the appellant with a fair opportunity, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the first respondent, which is both unreasonable and irregular. The impulsive decision of the learned Magistrate has led to a miscarriage of justice warranting the setting aside of the order of acquittal”, added the Bench.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the complainant and first respondent to appear before the Magistrate so that the complaint shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

Cause Title: James. A.C. v. K. A. Sakthidharan And Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023: KER: 60369]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment