IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1132 OF 2001 Between: A. Ramachandra Naidu ..... Revision Petitioner/Complainant AND 1. R. Kumar …. Respondent/Accused 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. through Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner-complainant under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order, dated 07.07.2001, in Crl.M.P.No.844 of 2001 in C.F.No.4586 of 2000, on the file of the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor, whereunder and whereby, a petition under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. to restore the complaint, was dismissed. 2. None appears inspite of giving several opportunities. The complaint was dismissed, as the complainant was not prosecuting the case diligently. Even the complainant did not turn up to the Court to give his sworn statement and also failed to produce the witnesses to be examined in the complaint. Therefore, the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor, rightly dismissed the complaint as the complainant did not appear on the date of adjournment. 3. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint. The subordinate Courts have no inherent powers to pass orders including the restoration of complaint except as provided specifically in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the same. That order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for any interference by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 19th August, 2009. KL