1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 46461-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 9.7.2009 *** Tikka Ram @ Tek Chand .. Petitioner Vs. Tara Chand .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 11.2.2004 passed by learned trial Court dismissing in default the complaint of the petitioner wherein the respondent was summoned under Section 500 IPC and dated 19.7.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the revision of the petitioner preferred against the said order,being not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that on the fateful day when his complaint was dismissed, he could not appear before the Court due to compelling circumstances and it was bonafide belief of the petitioner that his presence was not necessary on that date of hearing since the case was fixed for filing reply to some application, which has resulted into dismissal of his complaint, whereas earlier he used to appear on each and every date of hearing. The perusal of Section 256 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that in a situation of non-appearance of the complainant, it is open for the Court to either dismiss the complaint or to adjourn the hearing of the case if he thinks it proper. Thus, there is no hard and fast rule that the absence of complainant would amounts to dismissal of complaint. The Court, if think 2 proper, may proceed with the case. In the instant case, it reveals from the perusal of order dated 11.2.2004 that on that day it was not only the complainant who had not appeared before the Court, but there was no representation for and on behalf of the accused-respondent as well. Needless to say that any benefit could be drawn by the complainant by not appearing in the Court intentionally as it is his own complaint. It is always in the interest of justice that the matter should be adjudicated on merits. Thus, the impugned order passed by the court below seems to be harsh in the circumstances. But since the petitioner was somewhat negligent in pursuing his case in a right perspective, he has to compensate the respondent by paying the cost. In view of this, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.2.2004 and 19.7.2007 are aside subject to payment of Rs.10000/- as cost to respondent. The matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number and then to further proceed with the case right from the stage, from where it was dismissed and dispose it of expeditiously, on merits that too on payment of cost by the petitioner to the respondent-accused. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court below on 10.8.2009. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 9,2009 Jiten