Judgment : 3Heard. 2. This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal against order dated 7/6/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arjuni (Morgaon) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 547 of 2007, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR whereby the complaint filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of absence of the complainant and his Advocate and for not taking steps for a long time for securing the presence of the accused. 3. Perused the copy of the complaint and the impugned order. 4. The impugned order, as argued by the learned Advocate for the applicant, is not on merit but is an order of dismissal for default. 5. Considering that this is a technical dismissal under Section 256 Cri.P.C., leave to file appeal against the impugned order is granted. Appeal be registered and numbered, accordingly. 6. Admit. 7. Mr. R. M. Pande, learned Advocate waives service of notice for sole respondent, after admission. 8. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 9. It is seen that the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the complainant in respect of the cheque of an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. Process was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The respondent had initially HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR appeared and had furnished the bail. However, it appears that the respondent-accused subsequently started remaining absent and as per the request of the appellant, initially bailable warrant was issued and thereafter, the appellant had applied for issuing Non Bailable Warrant against the accused. It is further seen that the appellant had paid the process fee for issuance of Non Bailable Warrant but, since the report of the concerned police station regarding service/non service of the bailable warrant was not received by the Court, Non Bailable Warrant was not issued. Subsequently, the complain t was transferred from regular Court to the morning Court at Arjuni (Morgaon) and on 7/6/2011, since the complainant and his Advocate was absent when the matter was called out, the complaint was dismissed. 10. Subsequently, the complain t was transferred from regular Court to the morning Court at Arjuni (Morgaon) and on 7/6/2011, since the complainant and his Advocate was absent when the matter was called out, the complaint was dismissed. 10. The learned Counsel for the complainant showed his bonafides by appearing before the said learned J.M.F.C. on the day of dismissal itself and praying for setting aside the said order of dismissal. There is no provision for the learned J.M.F.C. to set aside its own order of dismissal. 11. Shri Dhore, learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the ruling in the case of Murlidhars/o Harkisandas Manwani Vs. Shri Sharangdhar s/o Ramlal Lohar reported in 2011 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR ALL MR (Cri) 2198, which is based on similar situation. In the case supra, the learned Single Judge of Aurangabad Bench of this Court has held that principles of natural justice require that an opportunity be given to the complainant to prosecute the complaint on its own merits, however, by simultaneously compensating the accused due to inconvenience caused to him, by awarding reasonable costs. Learned Advocate Shri Dhore has also relied upon a decision of the same learned Single Judge of Aurangabad Bench of this Court in the case of ShriPratap s/o Gopaldas Talreja Vs. Shri Bhagwandas s/o Jehumal Matani reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2192, wherein also it has been held that the principles of natural justice require that opportunity be given to the complainant to prosecute the complaint on its own merits as well as opportunity needs to be given to the accused also to contest the complaint on merit. In the case supra also, the same was done by awarding the costs to the accused. 12. Considering the fact that there was actually no absence of the learned Counsel for the complainant on 7/6/2011, but there was delay in appearance, I am of the view that the principles of natural justice require that opportunity be given to the complainant to fight out his case on merits. No prejudice would be caused to the respondentHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR accused. No doubt, inconvenience has been caused which can be made good by awarding the costs. 13. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 7/6/2011 is quashed and set aside. No prejudice would be caused to the respondentHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR accused. No doubt, inconvenience has been caused which can be made good by awarding the costs. 13. In the result, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 7/6/2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Magistrate. Parties to appear before the trial Magistrate on 5/10/2011, in the morning session. The trial Magistrate shall decide the matter on its own merits, afresh. 14. The appellant shall pay Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as costs to the respondent to be deposited before the trial Court, which shall be a condition precedent to be complied with on or before 5/10/2011. 14. The application as well as appeal stand disposed of accordingly.