THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL(SR) No.30220 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed against the order of dismissal of the complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli, in C.C.No.582 of 2008, dated 27.07.2010. 2. The impugned order reads as under: “Complainant absent. No representation since long time. Hence, the complaint is dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C.”. 3. There were money transactions between the complainant and the 1st respondent herein and in lieu thereof, a cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and on presentation, the same was bounced. Thereafter, after following the procedure under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complainant filed a complaint and after recording the sworn statement on 05-09-2008, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and numbered the same as C.C.No.582 of 2008. Though summons were ordered to be issued to the 1st respondent on several occasions, the same were not served on him. 4. On 27-07-2010, as stated supra, as the summons were not served on the 1st respondent-accused he was absent and the complainant was also absent and as there was no representation on behalf of the 1st respondent herein, the Court dismissed the said complaint as stated supra. The same is questioned in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant contended that the absence of the complainant was neither wilful nor intentional. He submitted that the case was coming up for appearance of the accused and the presence of the complainant was not necessary and, therefore, the complaint should not have been dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 7. It is submitted that the case was coming up for appearance of the accused. Therefore, the presence of the complainant was not essential. In view of the specific averments made in the complaint that the 1st respondent- accused, who borrowed the amount, issued a cheque and the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank, this Court is of the view that the case has to be decided on merits instead of dismissing the same on some technicalities. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not have been passed which is liable to be set aside. As it is in between the Court and the appellant, issuance of notice to the private respondent is hereby dispensed with. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 15th September, 2010 Tsy