IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7765 OF 2009 Between: S.Varalakhmi …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7765 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order dated 19.06.2009 in Revision Petition No.74 of 2009, on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed on the ground that notice was not given. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the respondents alleging offence under Section 500 Cr.P.C and the same was taken cognizance by the learned X-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No.183 of 2002. By order dated 30.01.2009, the said complaint was dismissed for non- prosecution under Section 256 read with Section 204 Cr.P.C as the complainant was absent and no representation is made on his behalf. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.74 of 2009. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 19.06.2009, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that notice was not given. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was ordered to serve notice on the counsel appearing for the respondents before the trial Court, but notice could not be served as the counsel was not available and in spite of bringing the said fact to the notice of the Sessions Court, the compliant came to be dismissed, instead of ordering fresh notice. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the revision petition itself is not maintainable, as the specific remedy of appeal is available against the order of acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed the remedy of filing an appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C., which contemplates acquittal of the accused in the event of non- prosecution of the complaint by the complainant. The revision petition itself was, therefore, not maintainable. In that view of the matter, it is considered neither just nor expedient to set aside the impugned order, dismissing the revision petition. Though it was dismissed on the ground that notice was not served, the petitioner, is, however, at liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the learned Magistrate, dismissing the complaint for non- prosecution under Section 256 Cr.P.C., if permissible under law and is not barred. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of accordingly with liberty as stated above. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th December, 2011 Note: CC in three days. B/o Lrkm