( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4th November, 2006 which reads as under:- "4. 11. 2006 present: Complainant absent. Accused along with his counsel. Ld. PO has gone to Tihar Jail for official duties. Complainant is not present despite several calls. Hence complaint is dismissed due to non prosecution. File be consigned to record room. LMM/rohini, DELHI 4. 11. 06 ( 2 ) A perusal of the order would show that on 4th November, 2006, the presiding Officer was not there and only Link MM had come to the Court for giving dates. Since Link MM in normal Course does not discharge the regular business of the Court and he only adjourns the case, it was not appropriate for him to dismiss the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant, that also in the early hours of the day. The order does not mention the time of the dismissal of the complaint but it is a matter of common knowledge that Link MM gives adjournments in the cases of concerned MM in the early hours of the day and goes to his Court and holds the Court. This Court has several time observed that the complaints should not be dismissed in early hours of the day and a pass over should be given in such cases where none appears in the early hours and the courts should pass adverse orders at the second call or around 12. 00 Noon or thereafter. Even otherwise, under Section 256 Cr. P. C. Court of MM has discretion, in case of non-appearance of the complainant, not to dismiss the complaint and give adjournment. ( 3 ) IN this case, since the Link MM was holding the Court, it would have been appropriate to adjourn the matter. The order dated 4th November, 2006 is hereby set aside. The complaint is restored to its original number. ( 4 ) THE appeal is allowed. The complainant to appear before CMM/acmm concerned on 12th September, 2007 who shall mark the complaint to the court concerned.