LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD Vs. ABRAHAM PHILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant and cognizance has already been taken of the offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and 471 of the IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant. The matter stood posted for appearance of the accused. On a number of occasions the case underwent adjournments. But the accused had not entered appearance. On 5/1/07 there was no sitting, the case was adjourned by notification to 9/2/07. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order proceeded to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused on the ground that the complainant has not produced the correct address of the accused.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a Company and the endorsement that the complainant is not present is not of any crucial relevance. The Company was represented by its Manager who was physically present in the court, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the endorsement of the court shows that the complainant was absent and at this stage I have to go by that noting made by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) Be that as it may, the personal presence of the complainant was not obviously necessary and the matter stood posted only for furnishing the address of the accused. It is not noted in the order that the complainant was not represented by the counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, Annexure-I petition had already been filed before the learned Magistrate giving the available address and details of the accused. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate went wrong in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused.