IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1689 OF 2009 Between: M.Ramachandra Reddy ..... Petitioner/Complainant AND 1. M.Dhanraj Reddy ..... Respondent/Accused 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1689 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (4) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the order, dated 13.08.2009, in C.C.No.726 of 2008, on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. as the complainant was absent on 13.08.2009. 2. Inspite of service of notice to the accused/first respondent herein, none appeared. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the presence of the complainant may not be necessary in view of the fact that the case is posted on 13.08.2009 for examination of the accused and therefore, the presence of the complainant may not be necessary, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. As seen from the impugned order, dated 13.08.2009, the complainant was absent on 13.08.2009. The accused was present for each and every adjournment; that there was no representation on behalf of the complainant; and that there were no valid grounds for grant of further time since the complainant appears to have lost interest to prosecute the case. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. 6. It seems that on 02.01.2009, both the complainant and the accused were present. Thereafter, the case was coming on for examination of the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Till the date of filing of the appeal, the accused was said to have not examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Therefore, as seen from one of the grounds in the appeal, it is clear that the presence of the complainant may not be necessary in view of the fact that the case is coming on for examination of the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on 13.08.2009 is not warranted in those circumstances. Hence, the impugned order, dated 13.08.2009, is set aside. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 18th January, 2010 KL