HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.51 OF 2003 Date: 28-06-2011 Between: M/s. Sanghi Spinners India Ltd., Office and factory at Sanghi Nagar, P.O. Koheda Hayathnagar, R.R. District, Rep. By its Dy. General Manager (Accounts), K. Nagender Prasad, S/o.K.V.L.K. Venu Rao. - - - Petitioner/ Complainant. Versus 1. Dr. D. Raj Reddy. 2. Dr. P.G. Reddy. 3. The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Accused. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.51 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Revision Petitioner-Complainant against order, dated 05-09-2002, rendered in C.C. No.100 of 1998 by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Revision Petitioner is the Complainant and the Respondents 1 and 2 are A-3 and A-4 in C.C. No.100 of 1998 before the lower Court. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant for default which reads thus : “The complainant is called absent. No representation. Process not paid as ordered by the complainant for issuing NBWs against A-3 and A-4. It seems that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the accused, A-3 and A-4. This is a case of 1998. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for default against A-3 and A-4 under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. for non- prosecution.” 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner-Complainant that the Court below failed to use its discretion properly and the Revision Petitioner-Complainant did not involve in prolonging the matter and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Now, the point for consideration is : Whether sufficient grounds are shown in order to set aside the impugned order? 5. Sections 249 Cr.P.C. reads as follows : ”Absence of complainant : When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded, or is not a cognisable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharged the accused.” 6. A perusal of the impugned order clearly provides that just because the Revision Petitioner-Complainant was not present and necessary process was not paid on the particular day and without considering other factors pertaining to the case that order was passed. Significantly, the provision contemplates that the Magistrate has to use his discretion while doing so in similar circumstances before framing necessary charges against the accused. It is not endorsed that the Revision Petitioner-Complainant involved in similar conduct earlier. The Magistrate should have considered various circumstances including the earlier conduct of the Revision Petitioner-Complainant and also the gravity of the alleged offence while dismissing the complaint for default, but it seems no such discretion was exercised by him. 7. Therefore, it is quite unjustifiable to dismiss the complaint for non-appearance of the Complainant and non payment of necessary process on that particular day. Persons who suffer by reason of criminal acts do approach the Courts for taking necessary action against those who committed the acts by taking necessary measures. If their matters are dismissed without using proper discretion by the courts it is likely to cause great injustice to them. Unless necessary action could be taken against the Criminals, innocents or those who cannot prevent highhanded behaviour intended against them will suffer a lot. 8. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I am inclined to allow the Criminal Revision Case holding that the order passed by the lower Court is not proper. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order with a direction to the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to give opportunity to the Revision Petitioner-Complainant to pay necessary process and proceed with the matter. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 28h June, 2011. Dsh/Pnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 146 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.51 OF 2003 June, 28, 2011 DSH/PNB