fact that is settled law that rights of the parties should be decided on merit as far as possible. The Court should do substantial justice between the parties and should not go into the technicalities of the law. The learned trial Court had grossly erred in law as well as facts in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution. It has been further stated that while dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution and acquitting the accused, the learned trial Court recorded the findings contrary to the material on record, hence the order is not sustainable both in law as well as on facts. It has been submitted that the complainant had been appearing before the learned trial Court mostly on each and every date of hearing. The complaint was fixed on 17.3.2016 for issuance fresh notice to accused through RC on filing RC and copy of complaint by the complainant as per previous order. On 17.3.2016, the appellant had failed to appear and as such the complaint was dismissed in default by the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that the real cause of non-appearance of the appellant on the date fixed was that the appellant noted the date wrongly as 19.3.2016 instead of 17.3.2016 and on 19.3.2016, when the appellant reached the Court, he came to know about the impugned order passed due to his absence and also of his counsel. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed/set aside as he (complainant) was unable to attend the Court on that day. It has been further prayed that the complaint of the appellant may be restored to its original number, in the interest of justice.
