Anima Hazarika, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar) ('SDJM' for short) No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 2959c/2005 whereby and whereunder the case of the complainant was dismissed for default and the accused was discharged after framing of charge. I have heard Mr. R.K. Agarwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the respondent No. 2. None appeared for the respondent No. 1 despite their names shown in the cause list. 2. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party No. 1 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati which was registered and numbered as C.R. Case No. 2959C/2005. The case was transferred to the Court of learned SDJM (S) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati. The learned SDJM(S) No. 1 took cognizance of the case and after examining the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. finding a prima facie case against the accused/respondent No. 1 under Sections 417/418/420 IPC issued summons to the accused. During the course of the proceeding, three prosecution witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court. Before framing of charges no witnesses were examined from the defence side. The case was taken up on 12.4.2007 and the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and materials on record was of the view that there is reasonable ground to believe that there are materials under Sections 417/418/420 IPC against the accused and accordingly, framed charges. The charges so framed being read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, fixed 5.5.2007 as next date. On 5.5.2007, complainant was present but accused was absent. The court directed to issue warrant of arrest against the accused fixing 9.7.2007 for appearance. On 9.7.2007, the accused as well as complainant were present. So, warrant of arrest was recalled, fixing 10.8.2007 as next date for cross-examination of PWs. On 10.8.2007 both the complainant and accused were present along with their counsel. All the prosecution witnesses present on that day were cross-examined. But from the defence side a petition was filed for adjournment of the case. The learned trial Court allowed the said petition imposing cost of Rs. On 10.8.2007 both the complainant and accused were present along with their counsel. All the prosecution witnesses present on that day were cross-examined. But from the defence side a petition was filed for adjournment of the case. The learned trial Court allowed the said petition imposing cost of Rs. 300/- to be paid by the accused to the three witnesses present on that day @ 100/- each, fixing next date on 22.10.2007 for examination of the PW 1 (complainant). On 22.10.2007 the case could not be taken up as the learned SDJM was on leave. The matter was re-fixed on 16.11.2007 for cross examination of PW 1. On 16.11.2007 the complainant who is an old lady informed her counsel about her inability to appear personally before the learned trial Court due to her sudden illness and accordingly instruction was given to her counsel to take necessary steps. But on that day, the counsel for the complainant could not reach the Court in time due to traffic jam as 'chhat puja' was being observed on that day. When the counsel reached Court at about 11-30 AM, by that time the case was dismissed and the accused was discharged. 3. The aforesaid order dated 16.11.2007 is under challenge before the Court in this revision petition. From the order dated 16.11.2007 it appears that the complaint case was dismissed only on the ground of "reluctance of the complainant to offer herself for cross-examination". 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court's record would reveal that complainant was very much diligent and all along present herself for cross examination. Even on the day when the impugned order of dismissal of the complaint case was passed by the learned trial Court, the counsel for the complainant had gone to the Court for taking necessary steps but he was late due to the reason beyond his control and by that time the case was dismissed. The learned counsel further submitted that in a warrant case instituted otherwise then on police report, the Magistrate is permitted to discharge the accused only under Sections 245 and 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the instant case, neither the provision under Sections 245 nor 249 have been satisfied while passing the impugned order of dismissal of the complaint case by the learned trial Court and discharging the accused. In the instant case, neither the provision under Sections 245 nor 249 have been satisfied while passing the impugned order of dismissal of the complaint case by the learned trial Court and discharging the accused. The same is, therefore, without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside and quashed. Mr. Agarwala would submit that even after framing of charge against the accused, dismissal of the complaint case for the absence of the complainant for a single day only amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, now the question arises as to whether after framing of charges in a case under Sections417/418/420 IPC, the case could be dismissed for default? 6. In the instant case, the charges framed against the respondent No. 1 were under Sections 417/418/420 IPC. As provided in the first schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code the offence under Sections 417 and 418 are non cognizable and bailable whereas the offence under Section 420 IPC is cognizable and non bailable. In such a case, the provisions for trial under Sections 244 to 249 falling in chapter XIX of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be attracted. 7. Section 245 Cr.P.C. provides that if, upon taking all the evidence mentioned in Section 244 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out which, if un-rebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. Sub Section (2) of Section 245 Cr.P.C. recognizes the power of a Magistrate to enable him to discharge an accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. In a situation where the accused is not discharged in the manner stated above, the Magistrate is to proceed with the provision of Section 246 Cr.P.C. and frame charges in writing. After framing of the charges at the desire of the accused persons, the Magistrate shall recall any witness for cross examination and/or re-examination (if not), the evidence of the remaining prosecution witness shall thereafter be taken and such witnesses shall be discharged after cross-examination or re-examination (if any). After framing of the charges at the desire of the accused persons, the Magistrate shall recall any witness for cross examination and/or re-examination (if not), the evidence of the remaining prosecution witness shall thereafter be taken and such witnesses shall be discharged after cross-examination or re-examination (if any). Thereafter, the accused would be given opportunity to enter upon his defence and produce his defence as per Section 247 Cr.P.C. 8. In a proceeding instituted by the complainant, if on the date of hearing of the case, the complainant is absent and the case may be lawfully compoundable and if the case is not cognizable one, the Magistrate may at his discretion discharge the accused persons as provided in Section 249Cr.P.C. 9. Section 249 Cr.P.C. being relevant is quoted hereunder: 249. Absence of complainant.--When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded, or is not a cognizable offence the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused. 10. In the present case in hand, the trial Court, in exercise of power under Section 249 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint case resulting discharge of the accused person. 11. Now the point to be decided as to whether the learned Magistrate could have dismissed the complaint in the absence of the complainant by passing the impugned order and in the manner as has been done in the instant case. 12. Analysis of Section 249 Cr.P.C. discloses that in order to invoke the power reserved under that provision, the following ingredients should be fulfilled: (i) The proceeding must have been instituted upon complaint; (ii) The case is fixed for hearing; (iii) The offence charged is lawfully compoundable; (iv) The offence is non cognizable offence. 13. Upon satisfaction of the aforesaid ingredients only an accused can be discharged by invoking the power under Section 249 Cr.P.C. There is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for dismissing a complaint in a manner as has been done in this case. But in such a situation upon fulfilling the necessary condition, an accused can be discharged. 14. In the instant case, as observed hereinabove, the offence under Sections 417/418 IPC are non cognizable and compoundable offence. But in such a situation upon fulfilling the necessary condition, an accused can be discharged. 14. In the instant case, as observed hereinabove, the offence under Sections 417/418 IPC are non cognizable and compoundable offence. In non-cognizable offence the Magistrate is not empowered to discharge an accused in exercise of power under Section 249 Cr.P.C. and the Court is to proceed with a case of that nature even in the absence of the complainant (Ref: Nobi Bakhsh A. Vs. King Emperor, : AIR 1924 Lah 627). 15. A similar matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanak Bora v. Asatu Kalita reported in AIR 1950 Ass 211. In that case after framing charges under Sections 379 and 426 IPC against the accused, the trial Court acquitted the accused due to absence of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 258(1) of the old Cr.P.C. (1898). Disapproving the action, the Division Bench held that after framing of charges, if the complainant and his witnesses were absent, the learned Magistrate should have secured their presence by coercive process and their absence was not a ground for acquitting the accused. 16. As discussed above in the instant case, the ingredients of exercising discretionary power under Section 249 Cr.P.C. are not available. 17. A bare perusal of Section 249 Cr.P.C., it would reveal that the power under Section 249 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power which can be exercised, if the complainant is absent, only before the charge has been framed. While exercising discretion, the learned Court is to take an objective view of the entire matter. In the case of fulfillment of procedural matter, the Court is to observe the mandate of law. When the procedure prescribed by law is not followed and/or complied with then the order loses its legal sanctity. 18. In the background of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the complaint for not appearing the complainant on a single day, was passed in excess or without having jurisdiction to pass such an order. 19. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.11.2007 stands set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. 20. 19. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.11.2007 stands set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. 20. The matter will come up before the learned trial Court on 24.1.2014 for taking necessary steps on behalf of the complainant. Registry shall remit the record of the case to the learned trial Court forthwith. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the revision petition stands allowed. _