In a significant judgment that reinforces the principles of procedural fairness and access to justice, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the mere non-appearance of an advocate in court does not warrant the outright dismissal of a case. The Court emphasized that such dismissals, especially when rooted in communication gaps or administrative mishandling, go against the foundational spirit of justice. The ruling highlights the judiciary's duty to safeguard litigants’ rights and prevent avoidable miscarriages of justice that stem from procedural lapses.
The case before the High Court involved the dismissal of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to the complainant’s counsel failing to appear on the scheduled date. Importantly, this absence occurred in the context of the matter being transferred from one court to another without proper communication or intimation to the complainant or their legal representative. The trial court proceeded to dismiss the complaint under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits a magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant fails to appear.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, delivering the verdict, made it unequivocally clear that such powers under Section 256 are discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. The Court underscored that dismissing a case for non-appearance without confirming whether the absence was intentional or due to a genuine reason is a harsh measure, particularly when the complainant had otherwise shown consistent diligence in pursuing the case. The absence of proper notice regarding the court transfer, the Court held, indicated that the dismissal had resulted from administrative failure rather than any fault on the part of the complainant.
The High Court stressed that before invoking such a drastic measure as dismissal, the trial court ought to have taken a more measured approach—such as issuing a notice or granting a short adjournment to confirm the complainant’s intent. The Court observed that the complainant had not shown any sign of abandoning the case, and the absence of legal representation on the hearing date was clearly the result of confusion, not disregard for the judicial process.
In another connected matter reviewed by the Court, it dealt with a case that had been referred to a Lok Adalat. When one of the parties failed to appear, instead of returning the case to the referring court, the Lok Adalat dismissed it. The High Court condemned this action, stating unequivocally that a Lok Adalat is a conciliatory forum meant solely for amicable settlements and does not possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes or dismiss them on merits. If a settlement cannot be reached due to non-appearance or disagreement, the proper procedure is to return the matter to the original court for further hearing.
Through these rulings, the Rajasthan High Court laid down a broader principle: judicial discretion must be exercised with sensitivity and a commitment to substantive justice. Procedural defaults—particularly those arising from communication gaps or legal counsel’s absence—should not automatically result in adverse outcomes for litigants. The courts must act with a sense of proportionality and ensure that parties are given an opportunity to explain their absence before their cases are permanently closed.
The Court also cautioned that trial courts must remain aware of the serious consequences of dismissal orders. Such dismissals, especially in criminal matters, can lead to acquittals that are not easily reversible and may deny justice to complainants who are pursuing legitimate grievances. The dismissal of a case should never become a mechanical response to non-appearance but must follow a thoughtful, case-specific inquiry.
This judgment has wide-reaching implications. It reassures litigants that their rights will not be extinguished due to errors in court administration or the temporary absence of their legal representatives. It also serves as a reminder to trial courts and quasi-judicial forums like Lok Adalats to respect the boundaries of their jurisdiction and to prioritize the protection of legal rights over procedural shortcuts.
By reinforcing these procedural safeguards, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the essential principle that justice must not only be delivered but also be visibly fair, particularly in instances where the system itself may have contributed to the lapse. The ruling restores faith in the judiciary’s role as a protector of rights and confirms that courts are not merely arbiters of law but active guardians of justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.