M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment, dated 22.08.2016, passed in S.T.C.No.14 of 2007, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, Salem/trial Court.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The Complaint in S.T.C.No.14 of 2007, on the file of the trial Court, came to be dismissed on 22.08.2016, for the reason that, in spite of service of final notice, the Complainant was absent, and there was no representation on her behalf.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant, since the main case was posted for arguments, an opportunity might have been provided to the Appellant/Complainant to substantiate her version of the case.

5. Repelling the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused vehemently contends that, when the Appellant/Complainant had filed a Complaint before the trial Court, in S.T.C.No.14 of 2007, on 08.01.2007, and when the matter was posted for hearing the arguments in the main case on 22.08.2016, she should have been present, (unless, her personal appearance/presence was dispensed with by the trial Court), and since she was not quite diligent enough to conduct the case, and also on her behalf, there was no representation through any Learned counsel, the trial Court passed a final Order of Dismissal of the Complaint on 22.08.2016, in S.T.C.No.14 of 2007, which is free from any flaw.

6. It is to be noted that the Appellant/Complainant filed a Complaint in S.T.C.No.14 of 2007, on the file of the trial Court on 08.01.2007 (for an offence under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) and was disposed on 22.08.2016.

7. Ordinarily, the presence of either the Complainant, or the Respondent/Accused may not be insisted upon by a 'Court of Law', unless, their presence is indispensable in connection with the conduct/adjudication of the main case, with which, he/she is associated. No wonder, a 'Court of Law', cannot, for the sake of mere pleasure, can require the respective parties to appear before it. When the respective parties appear before the trial Court in a given case, it must serve a purpose. There is no use in requiring the respective parties to appear on each and every hearing of the case. In this regard, the trial Court can exercise its sound judicial discretion, and shall act as it deems fit and proper, based on the facts and circumstances of a given case, which float on the surface. However, no blanket order can be passed by a 'Court of Law', exempting the personal appearance of either the Complainant, or the Accused.

8. It is to be borne in mind that, a 'Court of Law' has to exercise its discretion, as per Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr.P.C.') with great care, caution, and circumspection. Even the presence or absence of an Advocate may be taken into consideration by the trial Court, when it is to determine whether to adjourn the main case or not. In short, the discretion cannot be exercised generously, impairing the cause of administration of justice. When personal appearance of the Complainant is not necessary on a particular day, the trial Court has to exercise its plenitude of its power to dispense with the personal appearance of the Complainant, or even the Accused, as the case may be. If, for further progress of the case, the presence of either the Complainant or Accused is just and necessary, the trial Court can exercise its discretion to pass an order, directing the parties to appear before it. The trial Court, as a short cut method, or by adopting a wooden approach, cannot resort to dismissal of the Complaint for the sake of statistical disposal.

9. In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for dismissal of the 'Complaint', or 'Discharge' of an Accused, when the Appellant/Complainant remain absent. Just because of