JUDGMENT : P.B. Varale, J. 1. Heard. 2. Perused the application. Considering the reasons stated in the application to be good and sufficient, application is allowed. Leave to file appeal is granted. 3. Appeal ADMIT. Looking to the short controversy involved in this appeal, the same is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent of the parties. 4. By this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 11/04/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 184/2012 thereby dismissing the case for want of prosecution and acquitting the accused persons. 5. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The appellant had approached the learned Magistrate, Akot by fling a complaint case raising grievance that the respondents, who are neighbours, were picking up quarrel with her on account of small issues. She further submitted that on 14.07.2012 when her husband was rearranging the tin shed, the respondents/accused had entered in her house and assaulted her husband by stick, kick and fist blows. Respondent/accused No. 3 was armed with the sickle. Husband of the appellant received injury to his left hand because of the blow of sickle and the appellant herself received injury to her left leg. The respondents/accused gave threats of life. It was further the grievance of the appellant that though she had approached the police station, the police station authorities failed to accept her report for the serious offences and lodged the report only for minor offences. As such, she left with no choice, but to approach the learned Magistrate praying for initiation of action against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 451, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, finding sufficient evidence against the respondents/accused, issued process under Sections 452, 323, 504,506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. 6. Mr. Dhande, learned counsel for the appellant, by inviting my attention to the copy of data sheets (roznama) placed on record at Annexure-C, submitted that the appellant/complainant was attending the Court, though failed to attend on some occasions but otherwise regular. He invited my attention to the entry in the roznama on 04.04.2014, which reads as under: "Complainant absent. Accused and counsel for accused are present. Matter posted for dismissal in default order on 03.05.2014". He invited my attention to the entry in the roznama on 04.04.2014, which reads as under: "Complainant absent. Accused and counsel for accused are present. Matter posted for dismissal in default order on 03.05.2014". Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate ought not to have initially posted the matter for dismissal as it was beyond the scope considering the factum that the case before the Magistrate was a warrant case and it could not have been disposed of by recording dismissal for non-prosecution. Learned counsel then submitted that though, the matter was fixed for 03.05.2014, the same was listed on 11.04.2014 and passed the order as under:- "complainant absent. Accused absent. Order passed on Exh.1. Case is dismissed." 7. It was the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/ complainant was under a reasonable and bona fide belief that the matter is posted on 03.05.2014 and she has to attend the Court on that date i.e. 03.05.2014 either personally or through the counsel. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate, without giving any opportunity to the complainant/appellant to know that the matter is fixed on an earlier date than the date fixed, passed the order of dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution. He submits that a serious prejudice was caused to the appellant as the appellant/complainant had approached the Court of learned Magistrate making serious allegations against the respondents/accused. The learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, dated 11.04.2014. 8. Mr. Bhise, learned counsel for the respondents/accused though made an attempt to submit that in the roznama the matter was posted for dismissal in default and as such, the learned Magistrate has committed no error in dismissing the case, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel. He submitted that the matter was called out as a matter in the category of cases clubbed for special drive. I am unable to accept the submission for the simple reason that even if the Court wanted to dispose of the matter for the reason of directions of the superior Court or any special drive, the party must be aware of the date on which the matter is fixed. I am unable to accept the submission for the simple reason that even if the Court wanted to dispose of the matter for the reason of directions of the superior Court or any special drive, the party must be aware of the date on which the matter is fixed. If the party i.e. appellant/complainant was under an impression, that too bona fide in view of the roznama, that next date fixed is 03.05.2014, it cannot be expected that the party would attend the Court on the earlier date if the party has no knowledge of such date fixed by the Court. It is the basic principle of natural justice which requires to be followed scrupulously and not in breach thereof. 9. Thus, without going into the other merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant of exceeding the powers by the learned Magistrate of dismissing the case for want of prosecution, though the case being warrant case, suffice to say that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable on the ground of giving no opportunity to the parties, resulting in failure to observe the principle of natural justice. In my opinion, learned counsel for the appellant has made out a case for allowing the appeal. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot, dated 11.04.2014 in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 184/2012 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot with a direction to pass the orders afresh by giving equal opportunity of hearing to the parties. 11. With these directions, the Appeal is disposed of.