3.After perusal of the complaint and verification, the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused under Section 138 of the Act. The complainant was represented through power agent. On 21.02.2013, the complainant's power agent and the accused were present since the Advocates abstained from court, the case was adjourned to 08.03.2013 and on that day, the complainant's power agent and the accused were present. On the petition being filed by the accused under Section 309 Cr.P.C the case was adjourned to 16.03.2013 for cross examination of P.W.1. It is seen that on 16.03.2013, the accused was present but the complainant was absent and the petition was filed by the complainant and the same was allowed and the matter was posted to 27.03.2013. On the said date, the accused was present but the complainant was absent and therefore, the learned Magistrate posted the matter to 08.04.2013 as a final chance to the complainant to be present for cross examination of P.W.1 and to enable the respondent/accused to cross examine the said witness. However, on 08.04.2013, the complainant remained absent and there was no representation for the complainant. Having no other option, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said complaint for want of prosecution and acquitted the accused by passing the order to that effect. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the complainant has preferred the present appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.
