IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 906 OF 2023 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Docket dated 15.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.203/2018 Magistrate, Kavali, at SPSR Nellore District. order on the file of Special BetiAreen: C. Surendranath Reddy, S/o. Premkumar Reddy, Hindu, Aged 44 R/o. H.No. 1-16-16, Old Town, Vemireddyvari Street, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District. years. ...Appellant/Complainant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Court, at Amaravathi. High 2. C. Narendranath Reddy, S/O. Prem Kumar Reddy, Hindu 49 years. Prop. Sri Venkata Santhoshi Bharath Thummalapenta Road, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District. aged about Gas Agencies, ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula The Court made the following; 1 APHC010140272022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 906/2023 Between: C.surendranath Reddy ...APELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Apellant: 1.SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respodent{S): 1.MEKAPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 906/2023 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Docket order dated 15.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.203 of 2018 on the file of Special Magistrate, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, by which order the respondent No.2/accused, acquitted on the ground that the said C.C is dismissed for default. 2. Heard Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the complainant was pursuing his case before the trial Court, he could not appear on the given date which made the trial Court to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution. Learned counsel would further submit that the absence of the complainant on the given date was neither deliberate nor intentional and a fair opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute his complaint which is filed under Section 138 of N.l. Act against the respondent No.2. Learned Counsel would further submit that the appellant has filed a petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C seeking adjournment which was dismissed. Learned counsel would finally submit that immediately after the impugned order was passed, the complainant filed the present appeal that itself shows his diligence in prosecuting the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the appeal. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant failed to comply with the conditional 4. 3 order passed by the trial court. Despite the conditional order, he did not choose to appear before the trial Court. The present appeal is filed without assigning any reason for his absence. In a causal manner, the appeal cannot be entertained. Learned counsel would finally submit that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the impugned 5. order passed, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, despite the conditional order passed the complainant could not appear before the trial Court. At the same time, a keen perusal of the impugned order would show that the order is bereft of reasons as to how the presence of the complainant on the date is important. The order is also silent regarding the stage of the matter. It is beneficial to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BLS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Rajanath Singh and Others^ . In the light of the legal position referred supra, coming to the factual matrix of the present case, simply because complainant was absent on the given date, the complaint need not be dismissed unless his presence is warranted on that particular date. As the impugned order is devoid of such references, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In that view, the appeal is allowed. Learned counsel representing both 6. parties is requested to instruct their respective parties to appear before the trial Court on 28.02.2025 to pursue their respective cases. Learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible without ^ (2023)4SCC326 4 granting any adjournment in a casual way by mere asking. This Court makes it clear that the learned trial Judge need not issue any notice to the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28.02.2025. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Special Magistrate, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, (by Fax/Whats app/Email) One CC to Sri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] (by Whats app/Email) One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Mekapothula, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. Three CD Copies To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.906 of 2023 I 2 8 FES 2025 J . Current Section . ^ C7 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL