BAPU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 26.2.1982 passed by the learned Addl. M.J.M. First Class, acquitting the respondents No. 2 to 4 of the offences under Secs. 447 and 448 IPC by dismissing the complaint under the provisions of Sec. 256 CrPC on account of the absence of the complainant.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. N.P. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that on 16.2.1982 i.e., ten days in advance, an application was filed before the learned Magistrate mentioning that the complainant will not be able to appear on the next date of hearing i.e., 26.2.1982 on account of some marriage in his relation. However, the learned Magistrate without considering the said application, rejected the complaint by the impugned order.

(3.) I have read the application dated 16.2.1982. The impugned order does not show whether the said application was considered by the learned Magistrate while he passed the impugned order dated 26.2.1982. I would have ordinarily set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. However, I am not adopting the said course for the reason that the complaint being of the year 1979 which has become stale, it is not desirable to revive the proceedings for the trivial offences like Secs. 447 and 448 IPC.