Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111148 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (SL No.12) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41288 of 2024 Applicant :- Sukanwati @ Shakuntala Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 848 of 2019 (Shakuntala vs. Karamveer and Others) under Sections 323, 504, 354-B, 506 I.P.C. as well as order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 414 of 2024 (Shakuntala vs. State of U.P. and Others), Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that a complaint case was filed by the applicant herein against the opposite party no.2 to 5 with regard to an incident dated 13.10.2018, with regard to rivalry between the parties due to voting in the election. In the said complaint, the opposite party no. 2 to 5 were summoned and the complaint was pending since, 2019. It is admitted case of the applicant that neither the complainant nor her counsel appeared in the said proceedings nearly about two years. In such circumstances, an application was moved by the accused persons seeking their discharge as the evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint was not led under Section 244 Cr.P.C. by the applicant for the sufficient period of time. Therefore, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had allowed the said application and discharged the opposite parties no.2 to 5 vide order dated 19.06.2024. Against the said order a revision was preferred by the applicant herein, which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Jude, Court, 12, Ghaziabad, vide order dated 23.10.204. Being aggrieved by the same the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant herein. 4. Relying upon Section 256 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the complainant and her counsel was absent and no evidence was led under Section 244 Cr.P.C., even then, the Magistrate was duty bound to decide the complaint case on merits relying upon the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. instead of discharging the accused. 5. Section 256 Cr.P.C., reads as under : "Section 256. Non-appearance or death of complainant. (1)If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day :Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2)The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death." 6. From the perusal of the aforesaid proviso of Section 256 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that if after the issuance of summons accused persons are present and the complainant and her counsel is absent from the proceedings, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused unless for some other reasons, he thinks fit and proper to adjourn the hearing of the case. It is admitted case of the applicant that, for about two years, neither she nor her counsel appeared in the said proceedings. The matter was adjourned time to time to give sufficient opportunity to the complainant to appear in the proceedings and lead the evidence. Despite that, she did not turn up for about two years nor did her counsel appear. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Magistrate or in the order dated 23.10.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision. 7. In view thereof, the instant application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad