1.       Learned counsel for the opposite party submits, on instructions, that the matter has been compromised amicably in between the parties and that is the reason on as to why last several dates since 18.08.2022, none has appeared in the matter.

 2.      The perusal of the order sheet indicates that on 18.08.2022, when the matter was listed, none had appeared for either party.  Thereafter, the matter was listed on 01.06.2023.  Again, none appeared for either party. Again, the matter was listed on 20.10.2023, similarly, once again none appeared for the either side.  The matter was again listed on 22.03.2024, the main counsel for the complainant did not appear and the opposite party also did not appear.

3.       Today during the course of proceedings at some stage, learned counsel for the complainant has appeared on screen. He was specifically asked about the reason for consistent non-appearance on behalf of the complainant for long and was also specifically asked about the correctness of the factum of compromise.  Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he is not in a position to apprise the Bench about the compromise as he has not sufficient instructions in this regard.  However, learned counsel for the complainant is not in a position to controvert the assertion made on instruction by the learned counsel for the opposite party. 

4.       In such overall circumstances there is no reason to doubt the assertion made by the learned counsel for the opposite party.

5.       The complaint stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

6.       However, in the interest of justice, it is observed that in case the factum of compromise is not found to be correct and the complainant feels that the complaint needs to be pursued, it may move an appropriate application for recall of the order and get the complaint restored/ revived in accordance with law.