HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.795 of 2003 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2228 of 2002 in Crime No.15 of 2001 dated 21.02.2003 on the file of the IX-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the protest petition filed by the petitioner-complainant was dismissed for default. The Petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 403, 406, 411, 420, 426, 477 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 120-B of I.P.C. before the IX-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who referred the same to the police, Ramgopalpet Police Station, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered the same as a case in Crime No.15 of 2001 against the accused under the aforesaid Sections of law and subsequently the case was entrusted to C.B.C.I.D. for investigation. After due investigation, the C.B.C.I.D. police filed a final report, on 17.04.2002 before the IX- Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, referring the case as Non-cognizable. On the basis of the said final report, a notice dated 19.04.2002 in Form No.96 was issued to the petitioner-complainant calling for objections, if any, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the said notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2228 of 2002 in Crime No.15 of 2001 seeking to take up the complaint on file and to conduct enquiry and punish the accused according to law. However, the learned IX- Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderaabd, by an order dated 21.02.2003, dismissed the said petition for default. Questioning the said order, the petitioner-complainant filed the present revision. Heard both sides. The impugned docket order reads as under: “Complainant called absent. No representation. Hence, this petition stands dismissed for default”. The advocate on record in the Court below filed an affidavit, which reads as under: “It is submitted that I am an advocate on record for the petitioner herein. On a private complaint filed by the petitioner in XI M.M. Secunderabad, FIR 15 of 2001 was registered by Ramgopalpet P.S. and it was later transferred to C.I.D. During the course of investigation, some property was recovered and handed over to the petitioner herein. The Investigating Officer, CID issued a notice to the complainant stating that the case is non-cognizable and if at all the complainant wants to oppose the report, they may file their objections before the IX- Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad (Present VI M.M. Court). The said notice was dated 19.04.2002. The complainant asked the counsel to file objections and accordingly we filed Protest Petition on 25.04.2002. It was returned with an objection on 06.05.2002 that Court Fee was not affixed on the petition. After complying with the objection, the petition was resubmitted on 08.05.2002, but no date of hearing was given as the final report submitted by CID was said to have been returned and it was not resubmitted. Even though I was enquiring in the Section at regular intervals, either the resubmission of final report or the date of hearing was not revealed and I was asked to come again and again. Meanwhile, I came to know from the Section that the petition was dismissed for default on 21.02.2003 for the reason that complainant was absent. The date of hearing of petition was not disclosed by the Section as such not known to us to attend the Court and represent the matter. The petition was dismissed for default but not on merits”. From a perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner-complainant was not aware of the date of hearing of the petition and, therefore, he could not attend before the Court below on 21.02.2003. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Court below ought not to have dismissed the said petition without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be aside and is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.2228 of 2002, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 23.09.2010 Gsn.