JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. 1. The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2014 whereby the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-complainant under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and by setting aside the order dated 4.3.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 69/2012 whereby the learned trial Court by dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the N.I. Act") and remanded the case for fresh consideration and decision. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that respondent-complainant filed a complaint for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner before the trial Court and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2014 and petitioner was acquitted for the aforesaid offence. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent filed an appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the learned appellate Court which was partly allowed and the order dated 4.3.2014 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration and decision. Feeling aggrieved, now the petitioner-accused is before this Court by way of this revision petition. 3. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that it is now well settled legal position that against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in respect of a complaint case, appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the complainant against such an order of acquittal is to file Special Leave to Appeal before the High Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. but learned appellate Court disregarding the well settled legal position entertained the appeal filed by the respondent and by setting aside the acquittal remanded the case back to the trial Court for fresh consideration whereas the appeal filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Manju Kawadiya v. Ghanshyam Sahu, reported in 2011 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 4211, Nathu Ram Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Another, reported in 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 490 and Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (2013) 2 SCC 17 . 5. Although, power was filed by advocate Shri Neeraj Joshi on behalf of the respondent, but at the time of hearing of the petition neither respondent nor his counsel appeared before the Court. 6. Now, it is almost well settled legal position that in a complaint case against an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Magistrate appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge is not maintainable and the only remedy available to complainant in such a case is to seek Special Leave to Appeal from the High Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the appeal filed by the respondent-complainant against the order of acquittal of the petitioner was not maintainable before the learned appellate Court and the same was liable to be dismissed on that account only. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2014 is quashed and set aside. The stay application also stands disposed of.