JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by learned 14th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara dated 3.4.2023 in Criminal Case No. 44159 of 2009 dismissing the complaint for non prosecution under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant is the Co.Op. Society registered under the Gujarat Co.Op. Societies Act, 1961 and given the vehicle finance to the Respondent- accused of Rs. 32 Lacs on 10.7.1996. Due to non payment the loan amount, the Lavad Case was filed before the learned Board of Nominees being Lavad Case No. 268 of 2002, which was allowed in favour of the Bank vide an order dated 30th November, 2002. Towards the part payment of decreetal amount, cheque of Rs. 3 Lacs was issued in favour of the complainant on 23rd December, 2008 and on depositing the same, it was dishonored with an endorsement “insufficient fund.” After following the due procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a private complaint came to be filed before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara being a Criminal Case No. 736 of 2009. After recording the verification, learned trial Court had issued the summons vide an order dated 10.2.2009. As accused did not appear before the learned trial Court, therefore, bailable warrant came to be issued vide an order dated 23rd August, 2011. Thereafter, case was transferred to the learned 12th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara vide an order dated 17.2.2015 and again, summons came to be issued, which was not complied with and therefore, bailable warrant was issued, however, respondent-accused did not appear. The case was transferred again to the learned 15th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara vide an order dated 19.9.2022 and again the same procedure followed and ultimately, Non Bailable Warrant was issued, and vide an order dated 9.1.2023, the proclamation was ordered to be issued and matter was kept on 10th February, 2023. On 6th March, 2023, despite the proclamation that has been issued, respondent-accused did not appear, an application was given for attachment of the property under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned advocate for the complainant. Thereafter, case was kept on 3rd April, 2023 and due to absence of complainant the impugned order was passed. On 6th March, 2023, despite the proclamation that has been issued, respondent-accused did not appear, an application was given for attachment of the property under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned advocate for the complainant. Thereafter, case was kept on 3rd April, 2023 and due to absence of complainant the impugned order was passed. It is observed by the learned trial Court that though the case was called out repeatedly, neither the learned advocate for the complainant nor the complainant remain present and therefore, complaint was dismissed for default by exercising the power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is impugned before this Court. 3. Heard Mr. M.M. Kharadi, learned advocate for the applicant-Bank, learned APP, Ms. Monali Bhatt, for Respondent-State and Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for Respondent-accused. 4. Learned advocate for the complainant states that on several dates, the complainant-Bank made an application before the learned Magistrate for issuance of the summons for execution of the bailable warrant and non bailable warrant, proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to initiate the proceedings under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only on the day when the impugned order was passed, neither the complainant nor his advocate was remained present but considering the applications, which are preferred to suggest that the complainant though given an applications from the year 2009 onwards, to secure the presence of the accused and for single default, the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court. Learned advocate submits that even before this Court also, respondent-accused appeared through an advocate, after issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. 5. Learned advocate submits that in the application filed for the cancellation of warrant, the same address is mentioned, which is in the complaint and the cause title of the appeal, this suggests that only to evade the proceedings, which is pending before the learned Court, the respondent-accused did not appear. Learned advocate submits that because of the non appearance of the respondent-accused, the case remained pending for more than 13 years. Learned advocate submits that though the complainant made all efforts to secure the presence and only on the single default in remaining present, an impugned order was passed and complaint came tobe dismissed. Learned advocate submits that because of the non appearance of the respondent-accused, the case remained pending for more than 13 years. Learned advocate submits that though the complainant made all efforts to secure the presence and only on the single default in remaining present, an impugned order was passed and complaint came tobe dismissed. Learned advocate further submits that as the matter pertaining to the Negotiable Instruments Act are barred by the limitation, and, on dismissing the complaint, the complainant would be left remediless and therefore, complainant prays to quash the impugned order and order to restore the original complaint in its original file. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Majmudar for Respondent No. 2 submits that complainant remains failed in serving the summons in executing bailable warrant/Non-Bailable Warrant and has also failed in appearing on the day when the impugned order was passed i.e. on 3rd April, 2023. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint for default and therefore, request not to interfere in the impugned order. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the respective parties, Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is required to be re-looked , is reproduced herein below: “Section 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. (2) The provisions of Sub-Section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the nonappearance of the complainant is due to his death.” 8. Considering the above mentioned provisions, it transpires from the record that after recording the verification, the summons came to be issued on 10th February, 2009. (2) The provisions of Sub-Section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the nonappearance of the complainant is due to his death.” 8. Considering the above mentioned provisions, it transpires from the record that after recording the verification, the summons came to be issued on 10th February, 2009. Because of non appearance of the respondent-accused, bailable warrant was issued on different dates, however, respondent managed the service of warrant and same remains un-served till the date when the impugned order was passed. During this period, the case was transferred to two different Courts and ultimately, the Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 29.9.2022 by the learned 15th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, despite the same, respondent did not appear, therefore, proclamation was issued in the newspaper on 25th January, 2023. Thereafter, the application was given on 6th March, 2023 below Exh.31 for initiation of the proceedings to attach the property of the respondent-accused under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One more aspect, which is required to be noted, the ASI, Gotri Police Station, Vadodara submitted the Report that when they went to the house of the accused, the family members of the accused were present, but, accused was not available and one of the family member, namely, Dishaben had made allegations on the police officer that by visiting the house again and again, the police officers are harassing the family members. The said report was submitted before the learned trial Court on 4th January, 2023. This Court had also issued the bailable warrant vide an order dated 25th October, 2023, which was remained un-served and thereafter, ultimately, the order was passed on 22nd December, 2023 and issued the Non Bailable Warrant against the respondent-accused observing that if the Police Officers remains failed in executing the Non Bailable Warrant, the DCP Zone-II, be remained present on 5th January, 2024. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent-accused appeared and filed an application on 9th January, 2024 praying to cancel the warrant. Reasons which are mentioned in the application that respondent-accused is senior citizen and suffering from various diseases. This Court vide an order dated 9th January, 2024 cancelled the warrant and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and directed the respondent-accused to remain present on each date until his presence is dispensed with by the Court. Reasons which are mentioned in the application that respondent-accused is senior citizen and suffering from various diseases. This Court vide an order dated 9th January, 2024 cancelled the warrant and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and directed the respondent-accused to remain present on each date until his presence is dispensed with by the Court. The address which is mentioned in the application filed by the respondent-accused is the same address which is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal as well as in the complaint which is filed before the learned trial Court. 9. The impugned order was passed on 3rd April, 2023 and prior to that date i.e. 6th March, 2023, the complainant was present and filed an application for initiation of the proceedings under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the proceedings which has been conducted before the learned trial Court, it appears that the respondent-accused only with a view to evade the service of summons or warrant did not appear and somehow managed with the police officers also. 10. The impugned order which operates as a final order barring the fresh complaint should be passed by the learned trial Court after appropriate application of mind and on sound exercise of the judicial discretion. The intention of the Court should not be disposal as a short cut for the trial by snap judgments. It transpires from the record that with a view to put an end to the case, by adopting the short judgment method, this impugned order was passed. When the criminal case is at the stage of service of non bailable warrant and proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were contemplated against the respondent-accused, learned trial Court was not justified in dismissing the complaint for non appearance of the complainant. From the record, it transpires that on the date prior to the impugned judgment, the learned advocate for the complainant moved an application for initiation of the proceedings under section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, for single default, exercise of power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 appears to be an impairing the administration of justice. 11. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that impugned order deserves to be quashed and compliant is required to be restored to its original file and the same is required to be decided on merits. 12. In view thereof, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by learned 14th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara dated 3.4.2023 in Criminal Case No. 44159 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned trial Court, forthwith. 13. As this matter is pending since 2009, learned trial Court is directed to conclude as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of the order. Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial after giving fair opportunity of leading the evidence to both the parties.