1. The Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 30.08.2016 in C.C. No. 53/2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, while passing the order in C.C. No. 53/2011 on 30.08.2016, had observed the following:

"Complainant absent. No representation. Bailable warrant pending. As the Complainant did not appear before this Court and take steps to proceed the case this Court issued notice to the complainant to appear today in D. No. 1518/2016 on 26.07.2016 and that notice has been served and AD card received. The notice has been sent to the address mentioned in the complainant. This case is of the year 2011. Therefore, this Court constrained to dismiss this complaint under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. for non-appearance of the complainant. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted."

3. Assailing the Legality, Validity and correctness of the Order of dismissal passed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 53/2011 on 30.08.2016, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal by taking a plea that the Respondent/Accused had successfully evaded service of notice from the trial Court and much time was taken in serving the notice upon him.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the complaint because of the absence of the Appellant/Complainant on 30.08.2016 and in fact, the resultant order of acquitting the Respondent/Accused is per se not correct in the eye of Law.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a prime stand that a 'Bailable Warrant' was issued by the trial Court against the Respondent/Accused and on the date of impugned order being passed by the trial Court to dismiss the complaint only because of the non-appearance of Complainant on the date of hearing on 30.08.2016 in C.C. No. 53/2011.

6. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Accused that the presence of the Appellant/Complainant was not dispensed with by the trial Court in C.C. No. 53/2011 and therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the Appellant/Complainant to appear for the hearing and in the instant case, the Complainant was remained absent and added further, there was no representation on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant and ultimately, the trial Court opined that the case in C.C. No. 53/2011 was of the year 2011 and dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. which ended in acquittal of the Respondent/Accused.

7. In effect, the plea taken on behalf of the Respondent/Accused is that the impugned order of the trial Court in dismissing the complaint for non appearance of the Complainant, besides there being no representation on 30.08.2016 does not suffer from any infirmity even in the eye of Law.

8. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Accused and noticed their contentions.

9. It is to be noted that the Appellant/Chit and Finance Private Limited Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, it is a juristic person in the eye of Law. The version of the Appellant/Complainant is that the Respondent/Accused was a subscriber of a Chit in respect of Group and Ticket No. J3G/0200/JMM/21 with the Appellant Company for a chit value of Rs.3,00,000/- and the monthly subscription payable was Rs.12,000/- and that the chit got terminated on 18.06.2009 and a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- on 31.03.2008 was received by the Respondent/Accused. As a matter of fact, a sum of Rs.1,36,287/- was due from the Respondent/Accused to the Appellant Company.

10. It comes to be known that in consideration for a sum of Rs.1,36,287/- being the outstanding amount, the Respondent/ Accused had issued a Cheque dated 20.11.2010 bearing No. 005597 drawn on Central Bank of India, Kattabettu Branch for the said sum to and in favour of the Appel