Judgment : 1. The appellant herein filed a private complaint against the respondents for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. II, Egmore, Chennai had passed an order on 25.10.2012, in C. C. No.6311 of 2006, dismissing the complaint under Section 204 (4) Cr. P. C., for the reason that the complainant neither appeared nor paid the requisite Court Fee through his counsel. Challenging the said order, the complainant had preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court. 2. Mr. T. Satyamurthy learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that originally, the case was pending before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, but it had been transferred to Fast Track Court. After the case being transferred, the case was called on different dates, but the complainant did not get the notice of transfer and hence, he could not be present before the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that bailable warrant was pending against the respondents/accused . The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents/accused originally appeared before the trial Court, but subsequently they had been absent. The complainant had been waiting before the trial Court for six years, but now his right had been deprived. 3. Per contra, Mr. R. Rajavignesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused submitted that the complaint being dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 204 (4) Cr. P. C., no appeal would lie before this Court and the complainant ought to have preferred only a criminal revision case before this Court. He has also relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in 2007 (1) Bankmann 351 (Tom Thomas Vs. Abdul Lathief). The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that as Per Section 372 of Cr. P. C., the complainant also being Victim ought to have filed an appeal before the Session Court and he has also relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2010 (2) DCR 352 (Rameshwar Dass Vs. Ishwar Singh). 4. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 5. It appears in this matter that the complaint filed by the appellant before the trial Court was pending for more than six years. Ishwar Singh). 4. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 5. It appears in this matter that the complaint filed by the appellant before the trial Court was pending for more than six years. The third accused in this case died and other accused have already appeared before the trial Court, but subsequently, as they have not appeared, bailable warrant was issued and it is pending for a long time. After the case being transferred to the Fast Track Court, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint. There is no material to show that any notice was served on the complainant after the case being transferred. The learned Magistrate had observed in his order that the complainant had not appeared, but at the same time, observes further that Process Fee had not been paid and the learned Magistrate, while dismissing the complaint, only mentioned Section 204 (4) Cr. P. C., but he had not mentioned the Section 256 Cr. P. C., though the complainant was absent. This Court accepts the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court cited supra that if an order has been passed under Section 204 (4) Cr. P. C., only revision would lie against such order. In this case, the complainant had been absent and that is the reason which waived the mind of the Court. Thus, strictly speaking only revision would lie. Now, the complainant having filed the appeal, this court feels that it is to be treated as Criminal Revision Case in order to render justice. 6. As the accused was not appearing before the trial Court for a long time, this Court feels that accused should not take advantage of the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint. The complainant having waited before the trial Court nearly about six years, he should not be made to suffer. 7. Section 372 of Cr. P. C. provides the victim to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court in cases where appeal lies after conviction before the Session Court. But when the appellant stands in a position of the complainant, having filed the private complaint he gets right to prefer an appeal before the High Court under Section 378 Cr. 7. Section 372 of Cr. P. C. provides the victim to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court in cases where appeal lies after conviction before the Session Court. But when the appellant stands in a position of the complainant, having filed the private complaint he gets right to prefer an appeal before the High Court under Section 378 Cr. P. C. I do not agree with the view taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the decision reported in 2012 (2) DCR 729 (Laxmilal Menariya Vs. Rajendra Kumar) 8. Now in the interest of justice, the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Egmore, Chennai, in C. C. No.3611 of 2006, is set aside and this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case according to law. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the second respondents/second accused undertakes to appear before the trial Court. In view of the above, both the complainant and the accused are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19.08.2013. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial.