Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the private complainant in C.C.No.465 of 2000 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Palani. It is the case of the appellant/private complainant that the second respondent/accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in connection with the business operation of the first respondent Firm and towards discharge of the same, the second respondent herein issued a cheque and it got dishonoured and though statutory notice was issued, the respondents/accused neither responded to the same nor paid the amount and, therefore, came forward to file the above said private complaint. When the case was called on 30.07.2004, the Trial Court noted that no progress took place in the case and further, the appellant/private complainant was also repeatedly not appearing before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, having found that no purpose would be served by keeping the case on the file, has examined the Court witness and discharged the respondents/accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/private complainant has preferred this appeal. 2. This appeal was admitted and notice was ordered to the respondents/accused on 18.11.2004. The notices sent to the respondents/accused returned with an endorsement "unserved". 3. In the considered opinion of the Court, the same situation, as prevalent at the time of passing the impugned order on 30.07.2004, continues even as on today and even in this appeal, the appellant/private complainant is unable to serve the respondents/accused. 4. It is pertinent to point out, at this juncture, the Calendar Case was filed in the year 2000 and it came to be dismissed on 30.07.2004 and after fifteen years, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for setting aside the order and remanding the private complaint once again for trial and adjudication. 5. This Court has also put a question to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as to whether the appellant/private complainant has instituted a suit for recovery of the money, as admittedly, it was a case of borrowal of money and it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no suit was also instituted to recover the money due and payable to the appellant/private complainant by the respondents/accused. 6. 6. This Court, on a perusal of the materials placed before it, is of the view that no purpose would be served by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter and even if this Court remands the matter, the completion of service on the respondents/accused would not be possible, as notice ordered to the respondents herein could not be served and returned with an endorsement "unserved". Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 30.07.2004 made in C.C.No.465 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Palani. However, the appellant/private complainant is always at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.