It has been stated in the grounds of appeal that on 8.3.2017 the complaint was adjourned to 5.4.2017 for further cross-examination of CW, but inadvertently wrong date i.e. 5.5.2017 was noted down by the counsel for the appellant, which was neither intentional nor deliberate. When on 5.5.2017, the counsel for the appellant went to the Court, he came to know that the case was adjourned to 5.4.2017 and not for 5.5.2017 and on 5.4.2017 the case was further adjourned to 3.5.2017 and on 3.5.2017 the complaint was dismissed in default and the respondent-accused has been acquitted. It has been stated that the appellant was pursuing the said case from the very first date and the respondent was seeking adjournments to compromise the matter. Even the respondent was obtaining the dates for making the payment to the appellant. There was no absence of the appellant or his counsel on the earlier dates given to both the parties by the learned trial Court. The absence of the appellant or his counsel on 3.5.2017 was neither intentional nor deliberate. In fact, inadvertently wrong date was noted down by the counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed/set aside as he (complainant) could not appear due to the above facts. It has been further prayed that the complaint of the appellant may be restored to its original number, in the interest of justice.
