HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2122 of 2009 Between Chittireddi Radha. …..PETITIONER And Madireddy Raji Reddy and others. ……RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2122 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 11.11.2009 made in Crl.MP.No. 568 of 2008 in Crime No. 26 of 2008 of P.S., Parkal, passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal, whereby and whereunder the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Alleging that the respondents 1 to 4 herein threatened two persons viz., Gouru Malla Reddy and Pingli Venkatamma not to attend the Court as witnesses on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondents 1 to 4 have committed an offence punishable under Section 195-A IPC. The said complaint was filed on 28.03.2008. It appears that the complainant was not regular in attending the Court. Therefore, on 21.08.2009, the learned Magistrate passed an order that the complainant was not attending the Court and if the complainant fails to attend on 04.09.2009, the complaint shall stand dismissed. The docket order dated 04.09.2009 shows that both the parties were called absent. The Presiding Officer did not attend the Court and the matter was adjourned to 10.09.2009. An application was filed to dispense with the appearance of the complainant and the said application was allowed in Crl.MP.No.568 of 2008 on 10.09.2009. The matter was adjourned to 11.11.2009. Again, on 11.11.2009, the complainant was absent. Therefore, the learned Magistrate holding that in spite of passing orders on 21.08.2009, the complainant did not attend the Court, dismissed the complaint as well as protest petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner-complainant was suffering from malaria and due to her ill-health, she was unable to appear before the Court and in view of the same, the lower Court ought to have given an opportunity to the complainant to proceed with the matter. It is always better if the matters are disposed of on merits rather than on technicalities. It is clear that the petitioner- complainant was not regularly attending the Court. In spite of passing specific orders, she did not attend the Court. However, having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-complainant was suffering from malaria, I consider it just and reasonable to allow the revision on condition of the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.500/- to the Mandal Legal Services Authority within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall fix the dates for examination of the complainant and her witnesses and shall proceed with the complaint. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Date :09.02.2010 usd