Appellant is the complainant, who preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - V, Thiruvananthapuram. By the impugned order dated 17-12-2003 in C.C No.310/2003, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate observed that there was no representation for the complainant and the accused was also absent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
3. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the presence of the complainant was highly necessary and in spite of that fact the complainant abstained from the court below. It is not revealed from the impugned order that the complainant was habitually abstaining from the court to cause loss to the
Crl.Appeal No.314 of 2004 2
accused/respondent. In other words, it is not clear as to whether the court below dismissed the complaint for the solitary non-appearance of the complainant. Considering the principle that matters should be allowed to reach a logical end on merits, I find that the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. Considering the fact that this is a very old matter, the court below shall dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
amk Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge