ORDER ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. The petitioner is the complainant, who had filed a complaint with regard to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was at the stage of arguments. The petitioner did not appear. The complaint was dismissed in default. 2. Hence this petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case was at the arguments stage, dismissal of the complaint in default was not justified. Reasons for absence of the complaint 4. Learned Counsel for the accused - respondent submits that in a summons case, dismissal of complaint in default amounts to acquittal, as in summons case there is no stage of framing charge as such. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case procedure of warrant cae had to be followed and even in a summons case, in absence of express order of discharge, dismissal in default of the complaint not being permissible, the order will be erroneous which can be corrected in revisional jurisdiction also. He also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Major General A.S. Gauraya vs. S.N. Thakur , 1988 (1) RCR (Criminal) 3. 6. After hearing counsel for he parties, I am satisfied that the order of dismissing the complaint in default was not justified and the said order can be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, this petitioner is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the complaint is restored. The trial Court will now proceed in accordance with law on merits of the case. 8. The parties will appear before the trial Court for further proceedings on 16.12.2005.