The excessive courtroom of Karnataka, whereas overturning a Justice of the Peace Courtroom order, mentioned instances can’t be dismissed simply to be rid of them.The Excessive Courtroom mentioned merely as a result of the complainant was not current in courtroom on a specific day, the case can’t be dismissed.
“When the presence of the complainant on that day isn’t vital, the discovered JMFC (Judicial Justice of the Peace First Class) ought to not have dismissed the grievance for non-appearance of the complainant,” Justice P N Desai mentioned in his latest judgement on a legal enchantment. “Easy to eliminate the instances or eliminate them, the grievance can’t be dismissed when there isn’t a necessity of the presence of the complainant,” mentioned the Excessive Courtroom.
The enchantment was filed by Nagaraj from Kalaburgi. He filed a personal grievance towards Ishwar Kamalapur in a cheque-dishonouring problem. The case was pending earlier than the JMFC courtroom since 2013.
The accused didn’t seem earlier than the trial courtroom until 2018. On October 17, 2018 when the matter was posted for recording the plea, the JMFC dismissed the grievance for ‘non-appearance of the complainant.’ Nagaraj challenged this earlier than the Periods Courtroom which allowed the case to proceed. This was challenged by the accused earlier than the Excessive Courtroom which allowed his plea. The complainant then filed a legal enchantment earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
Justice PN Desai, in his judgement, famous that the JMFC had saved the case pending for 5 years “for need of look of respondent/accused however dismissed the grievance when the case was posted for recording plea of the accused for non-appearance of the complainant.”“The courtroom has to see the stage of the case and the earlier look of the accused and complainant and what number of years the grievance is pending, and what’s the nature of the case earlier than passing any such dismissal order,” the Excessive Courtroom mentioned.
The courtroom mentioned the complainant’s presence isn’t important on the time of recording the plea of the accused. “It’s the obligation of the courtroom to report the plea of the accused by placing the substance of accusation towards him. The complainant’s presence isn’t all important,” it mentioned.
Citing Part 256 of the Prison Process Code, the courtroom mentioned, “It’s evident that the courtroom has to train its discretion judiciously. The proviso clearly signifies that when the courtroom is of the opinion that the non-public attendance of the complainant isn’t vital, the Justice of the Peace might dispense with attendance of complainant and proceed with the case.”