The need for the complainant's personal appearance and the discretion to adjourn the hearing before dismissing the complaint.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy in Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2018 dated 11.10.2018 confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy in C.C.No.167 of 2010 dated 27.11.2015.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking orders for setting aside the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2018 dated 11.10.2018 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy, confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, in C.C.No.167 of 2010 dated 27.11.2015.

2. The petitioner is the complainant and she filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., through her power agent, against the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that the petitioner / complainant being the proprietress of Sri Lakshmi Traders sold curled coir rope worth of Rs.1,89,950/- to the respondent/accused, that the respondent/accused, in order to discharge the said liability issued two cheques dated 31.10.2019 bearing Nos.032740 and 032741 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.89,950/- respectively drawn on Union Bank of India, Enikepadu, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, that the petitioner/ complainant presented the said cheques for collection through her banker Karur Vysya Bank, Srirangam Branch, Trichy, on 12.12.2009, that the cheques were returned dishonored for want of sufficient funds in the bank account of the respondent/accused, that as per the request made by the respondent/accused, the petitioner/complainant presented the cheques again for collection on 07.01.2010, but the cheques were again dishonored for insufficient funds, that the petitioner/complainant has then sent a legal notice dated 06.02.2010 demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheques, that the respondent/accused having received the legal notice, has neither sent any reply nor made any payment and that therefore, the petitioner/complainant was constrained to lodge the above complaint.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/accused, even after the receipt of Court summons, did not appear before the concerned Court and hence, Bailable Warrant was issued on 02.02.2012, that thereafter Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued on 15.04.2014, that since the said warrant was not executed, Bailable Warrant was issued again and that Bailable Warrant is pending against the respondent/accused from 25.08.2014.

5. It is evident from the records that on 27.11.2015, since the petitioner/complainant was not present and as there was no representation and that the case was pending for several years, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to dismiss the petition under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for the absence of the petitioner/complainant and consequently, acquitted the respondent/accused. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the petitioner/complainant has preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2018 and the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy, by observing that though Bailable Warrant was pending against the respondent/accused, the petitioner/ complainant was continuously absent for past eight hearings, despite sending of show cause notice dated 19.10.2015, dismissed the complaint.

6. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand reported in 1998 (1) SCC 687 and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-

“18. Reading the Section in its entirety would reveal that two constraints are imposed on the court for exercising the power under the Section. First is, if the court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing then the magistrate shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the magistrate considers that personal atte