Judgment Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar dated 16.7.2007, whereby the criminal revision no.77 of 2007, Kishore Sharma Vs. Preetam Prakash Arora, was accepted and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur was directed to provide an opportunity to the complainant Kishore Sharma to proceed with his complaint. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it transpires that complainant Kishore Sharma filed a complaint case no.1991 of 2007 (changed number after making over of the case) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, since a cheque, worth Rs.2.25 lakhs, allegedly issued by the petitioner favouring the complainant, was dishonoured. This complaint was filed on 19.9.2006, wherein the cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on 21.9.2006 under the said Section, asking the petitioner to stand trial. 3. The complaint was taken up in the court on several dates. Before this Court, the certified copies of as many as eight dates have been annexed with the petition in order to advert that on all dates, the complainant was absent in person. On few dates, exemption applications for personal appearance was moved by the complainant which were accepted. However, on most of the dates, the petitioner was present. 4. Lastly, on 7.7.2007, the complainant was absent, as usual, whereas the accused was present. So, the learned Magistrate, wisely enough, directed the case to be put up after lunch. 5. After lunch hours, when the case was taken up, again the complainant was absent but the accused was present. Therefore, learned Magistrate passed the order for dismissal of the complaint and to consign the same to the record room. This order of dismissal, passed by learned Magistrate on 7.7.2007, was challenged in revision no.77 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, who accepted the revision at the admission stage itself, without rendering any opportunity to petitioner to resist the same. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the Magistrate and directed him to render an opportunity to the complainant to proceed ahead with his case. 6. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the Magistrate and directed him to render an opportunity to the complainant to proceed ahead with his case. 6. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that under Section 256 Cr.P.C., when the complainant does not appear, it is mandatory upon the Magistrate to acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. 7. Having a look upon the order dated 7.7.2007, the Magistrate did not find any reason to adjourn the hearing of the case and, in turn, he dismissed the complaint, so this dismissal has the affect of acquittal, as envisaged by Section 256 Cr.P.C. and against the order of acquittal, only the appeal could have been preferred before the High Court, as adumbrated by Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- “378 (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support, has relied upon these precedents: - 1. Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Mohd. Jaros and another, reported in 2003 Cri. L.J. 102 (Delhi High Court) 2. M/s. Merchant alias Somji Agro Industries and Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Brij Mehra and another (Bombay High Court) reported in 2004 Cri. L.J. 1012 3. M/s. Laxmi Steel Industries Vs. State and another, reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 1197 (Rajasthan High Court) 4. Jagannath Patra Vs. State of Uttaranchal & another (Uttarakhand High Court) C482 petition no.42 of 2005, decided on February 14, 2008 The above precedents, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly support his contention. 9. On the other hand, these contentions have been refuted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, by placing reliance upon a judgment passed by learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of “Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder Parshad Vs. 9. On the other hand, these contentions have been refuted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, by placing reliance upon a judgment passed by learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of “Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder Parshad Vs. Prem Kumar” decided on 1.7.2010 (indiankanoon.org/doc /1009710/), wherein it was held as under: - “Thus, the legal position that emerges is that once the complaint is dismissed in default, the remedy available to the complainant is to challenge the order of dismissal in default by filing a revision petition. However, the Magistrate has no power to recall the order of dismissal in default by exercising inherent jurisdiction. Hence, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has, thus, rightly set aside the order passed by the Magistrate, whereby the complaint was restored and the order, whereby the complaint was dismissed in default, was set Crl.Misc.No.M- 10498 of 2009 (O&M) 6 aside. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.” 10. This Court is not in agreement with the law laid down by learned Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court, inasmuch as, the same is patently contrary to the law laid down in above three precedents, including that of by this Court. The said view is also expressly contrary to the mandate of the statute, as stated above. So, the learned Sessions Judge could not have entertained the revision against the order of acquittal and the only remedy available for the complainant to have approached the High Court by way of filing an appeal u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. 11. Therefore, the order passed by learned Sessions Judge in criminal revision no.77 of 2007, Kishore Sharma Vs. Pritam Prakash Arora and another, as well as any order passed in consequence thereof by any Magistrate court, are hereby quashed. Petition is, accordingly, allowed.