KAMAKSBAMMA Vs. TARANADH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri K. V. Ramana Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the lower Court is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 245 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The circumstances under which the order was passed are as follows:The complainant was not present on 2-2-1978 to which date the case was posted for continuation of the examination of the complainant. Previously the complainant was examined in part in chief. But on 2-2-1978, the complainant could not attend the Court and sent a petition for the reasons mentioned therein for adjournment. In the petition for adjournment it was stated that her grandmother died on 24-1-1978 and the ceremonies would be performed on that day at another place i.e., at Repalle village and hence she and her relatives had to go that place and she could not therefore attend the Court. The lower court dismissed that petition. But it did not stop there, It passed an order as follows;

(3.) 1 do not think that this order is in accordance with the provisions of sect ion 245 Cr. P.C. The court with one hand dismissed the petition for adjournment and with another hand held that the complainant had no evidence and the prosecution was therefore closed, and as there is no evidence, the accused are discharged under section 245 Cr.P.C- Section 245 Cr.P,C. does not contemplate that the Corut can take the power to close the prosecution against toe will of the comlam nant who was, prepared with the prosecution by giving evidence and also examining the witnesses. Merely becaase the complainant was absent, it does not mean that the complainant was no evidence or the complainant is not prepared to examine bis witnesses. It is only after the evidence leti in by the complainant and also the evidence adduced by bis witnesses is found to be unsatisfactory or does not make out any prima facie case to proceed further the Court has 10 discharge the accused. Section 245 Cr. PC. does not say that even if the complainant could not examine himself or his witnesses for valid reasons, the court is empowerd to close the prosecution and discharge the accused.