M/s. Mittal Steels v. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. G. Raju

Mr. G. Raju ..... Appellant/Complainant AND ..... Respondents/ Accused

The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Respondent The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order, dated

04.02.2009, in C.C.No.1551 of 2007, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the complaint was dismissed for default under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as there was no representation on behalf of the complainant.

2. Inspite of the service of notice to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, none appeared.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the impugned order, dated 04.02.2009, does not indicate any reasons for dismissal of the complaint except stating that the appellant/complainant was absent, and therefore, the dismissal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is unwanted and hence, he prays to set aside the dismissal order, dated 04.02.2009.

As seen from the impugned order, dated 04.02.2009, the C.C. was posted to that day finally for the presence of the appellant/complainant and for examination of the accused. As representation behalf appellant/complainant, the complaint was dismissed. Whether the presence of the appellant/complainant is absolutely necessary has not been stated in the impugned order, dated 04.02.2009. As a matter of fact, the presence of the appellant/complainant may not be necessary as the case is posted for examination of the accused. The trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to the appellant/complainant for his presence, and ought not to have dismissed the complaint for default. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 04.02.2009, is set aside, and the C.C. is restored to file.