VASANTH RAO Vs. RAMACHANDRASA ALIAS RAMANATHASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and so also the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that a private complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C to be filled for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 474 of IPC against the respondents herein. The concerned Investigating Agency after investigation filed 'b' report. Challenging the same, a protest memo was filed by way of objection statement and the matter was listed for recording the evidence of the complaint and the witnesses if any on the objection statement. At that stage, when the matter was posted for evidence of the complaint on 7. 6. 2003 the complaint and his counsel were absent. The complaint was dismissed for default. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) BOTH the counsels submitted their arguments. The procedure that has to be followed is the procedure provided for warrant trial, definitely the stage of framing charges had not yet come. The question would be whether the dismissal of the complaint for default would amount to an order of discharge or acquittal in the given situation. This was a case where the accused was not yet served with the summons the matter came to be dismissed. Section 249 of Cr. P. C. explains the situation when discharge order could be passed in favour of the accused before framing of the charge due to the absence of the complaint. It clearly explains what are all the conditions the court has to see when such order could be passed. Section 249 Cr. P. C. reads as under: