THERUVAI GOVINDAMMA Vs. THERE CHENCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the Order, 6-1-1994, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Satyavedu, dismissing the complaint, C.C. 102/1992, filed by the appellant-herein. The Order, dated 6-1-1994, passed by the learned Magistrate reads thus : "Complainant called absent. A-1 present. There is no representation even after lunch. Therefore, complaint dismissed u/S. 256, Cr.P.C. and accused are acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled".

(2.) A perusal of the docket orders passed by the learned Magistrate discloses that from 21-9-1993 onwards, when the case was posted for trial, the complainant/appellant was present in the court on a number of occasions, though she was occasionally absent. On the relevant date, i.e., 6-1-1994, the complainant was called absent and the private complaint filed by her was dismissed.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, the reason for her absence before the lower court is that she resides at a distance of 30 miles away from the court at Satyavedu, that on account of some agitation that was going on, on 6-1-1994, buses did not ply properly, and therefore she could not reach the court in time. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the dismissal of the complaint filed by the appellant is not proper.