Veeramma vs Arumugham and 5 Others

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, date 5-9-1988 in C.C. No. 176 of 1987, acquitting the accused Respondent u/s 256(1) Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Respondents accused were acquitted u/s 256(1) Code of Criminal Procedure by the trial court on the ground that when the case was called on 5-9-1988, the complainant/Appellant was not represented in person or through pleader. By way of this appeal, the complainant challenged that order, contending that her absence before the trial court on 5-9-1988 was neither wilful nor wanton and so she should be given an opportunity to conduct the case to get a decision on merits.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Mr. V. Nicholas, submits that the order passed by the trial court is not in accordance with law and court below should have adjourned the matter without invoking the provision of Section 256(1) Code of Criminal Procedure I am not inclined to accept the contention of learned Counsel, since Section 256(1) Code of Criminal Procedure states as follows:

If the summons has been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, not withstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day.

Calendar Case No. 176 of 1987 was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri on the basis of the private complaint by the complainant/Appellant, against the Respondents for the alleged offences under Sections 494 and 494 read with 109 I.P.C. I have gone through the relevant documents available on record. Even in the appeal preferred before this Court, the Appellant has not chosen to explain the reasons for her non - appearance. As the trial magistrate thinks it not proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day, because of the non-appearance of the complainant, he has invoked Section 256(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and I find no reason to interfere with the order of trial Magistrate. The order so passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri is valid in law and well within his powers.

In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.