Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The complainant petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.01.2004 whereby his complaint has been dismissed in default. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that on 112.2003 the complaints Counsel was present as shown in the order-sheet dated 112.2003. The matter was posted for 06.01.2004. On 06.01.2004, neither the complainant nor his Counsel was present due to unavoidable reasons. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 3. Learned P.P. has argued that there is no proviso in the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the learned trial Court to restore the complaint once it is dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. We have heard both the learned Counsels for the parties. 5. The foremost duty of any Court, whether civil or criminal, is to do justice to the people. A Court is not affected to behave in hot haste or to ignore the settled principle of criminal law. In case a complainant approaches the Court and states that he has a grievance on criminal nature, it is expected that criminal Court would show patience. Merely because the complainant and his Counsel were not present on the next date, would not be a sufficient ground to dismiss the complaint. After all, the complainant has knocked the doors of justice for genuine grievance and not as a sheer formality. Even if the complainant and his Counsel were not present, in the interest of justice, a future date should have been assigned by the trial Court. In is, indeed, surprising that the trial Court did not care to protect the interest of the complainant in a criminal case. "Justice hurried is justice buried" is an old expression, which the Courts must keep in mind when dismissing a case for non-prosecution. 6. We allow this petition and direct that the criminal complaint should be restored to its original number and the trial Court should pass the necessary orders in accordance with law. The complainant and his Counsel are directed to be present in trial Court on 012.2005.