KALAIMATHI Vs. DHANASEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE Complainant in S.T.C.No.1721 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi is the petitioner in the present revision case.

(3.) AT last when the matter came up before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi for hearing on 22.06.2011, the complainant was absent and hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate chose to pass over the matter to be taken up in the post-lunch session in the hope that the complainant might appear. When the matter was taken up for hearing at 3.00 p.m., the complainant as well as his counsel were absent. Only the Advocate Clerk chose to file a petition under Section 256 Cr.P.C.,presumably, to dispense with the personal presence of the complainant. Noting the fact that the counsel was also absent and also the further fact that the complainant was absent on four hearings viz., 29.10.2010, 28.01.2011, 01.04.2011 and 20.05.2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate chose to pass an order dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondent herein/accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C.