JUDGMENT 1. - The complainant-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota in Criminal Case No.310/2007 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of N.I. Act on account of his absence and non-prosecution of the complaint on the aforesaid date treating the impugned order as acquittal of the accused-respondent in the light of Section 256 Cr.P.C. 2. The appellant filed leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.7.2012 and the appeal was ordered to be registered. 3. From the office report, it appears that the accused-respondent has been duly served, but she has remained unrepresented. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that although in the light of Section 256 Cr.P.C. the learned trial Court was entitled to dismiss the complaint in the absence of the complainant and his counsel and to pass an order of acquittal of the accused, but at the same time it was not mandatory for the Court to acquit the accused in each and every case and there was alternative for the Court to adjourn the matter to some other day, but in the present case despite the fact that reason was shown by the appellant for his and his counsel's absence on the aforesaid date i.e. 1.8.2007, the alternative discretion available was not exercised. It was further submitted that cognizance was taken on 10.5.2007 against the respondent and the summon was issued and in-fact the case was fixed for the presence of the accused and, therefore, there was no necessity for the complainant to definitely remain present on the date so fixed i.e. 1.8.2007. It was also submitted that the complaint was filed on valid grounds and, therefore, cognizance was taken and respondent-accused was summoned and, therefore, it is interest of justice to decide the matter on merit instead of non-suiting the appellant-complainant due to his absence on one date only. 5. It was also submitted that the complaint was filed on valid grounds and, therefore, cognizance was taken and respondent-accused was summoned and, therefore, it is interest of justice to decide the matter on merit instead of non-suiting the appellant-complainant due to his absence on one date only. 5. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the material made available on record for my perusal as well as the relevant provisions and more particularly in view of the fact that endeavour shall be made to decide a criminal matter on merit instead of nonsuiting a party on the reason of his absence on a single date. A perusal of Section 256 Cr.P.C. shows that it was not mandatory on the part of the trial Court to dismiss the complaint in absence of complainant, which amounts to acquittal of the accused, but there is alternative for the Court to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date. No reasons have been assigned why the other option was not exercised. I am of the considered view that the impugned order is required to be set aside and opportunity be granted to the complainant-appellant to make endeavour so that his matter may be heard and decided on merit. 6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 1.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota in Criminal Case No. 310/2007 is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary action. The complainant-appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.3.2014. *******