JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Complaint Case No. 50- III/2015, whereby the complaint of the petitioner filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, came to be dismissed for default. The order reads thus:- "06.08.2018 Present: None for complainant. It is already 11:50 a.m. But neither complainant nor his counsel appeared. Be put up after lunch. Sd/- (Nitika Tahim) JMIC Nurpur Case called again after lunch. 06.08.2018 Present: None for complainant. It is already 4:00 p.m. Case called time and again but neither complainant nor his counsel appeared. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed in default for want of prosecution. File after its due completion be consigned to record room. Announced: 06.08.2018 sd/- (Nitika Tahim) JMIC Nurpur" 2. It is not in dispute that the complaint was pending trial from the year 2015 and there is no material on record to suggest that there had earlier been any fault on the part of the complainant. Even when the matter was listed on 06.08.2018, petitioner, as per his version, could not appear as he had been admitted at Naya Savera (Regd.) Drug Deaddition & Rehabilitation Centre (a non profit organization) w.e.f. 07.03.2018 to 25.08.2018. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P-3. 3. Evidently a very hyper technical and pedantic approach has been adopted by the learned court below by dismissing the complaint for default. The complainant was diligently pursuing his remedies and he has also given an explanation for his non appearance on the date fixed. Even otherwise there is no reason why the complainant would stop pursuing his case, after all it is a complaint involving dishonour of cheque. That apart, it is always in the interest of justice that the cases should be adjudicated on merits. 4. Similar issue came up before the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Azeem vs. A. Venkatesh & another (2002) 7 SCC 726 and the Hon"ble Supreme Court has held that the complaint ought not to have been dismissed by the court on account of single default on the part of complainant. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 and 4 of the judgment. "3. Azeem vs. A. Venkatesh & another (2002) 7 SCC 726 and the Hon"ble Supreme Court has held that the complaint ought not to have been dismissed by the court on account of single default on the part of complainant. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 and 4 of the judgment. "3. From the contents of the impugned order of the High Court, we have notice d that there was one singular default in appearance on the part of the complainant. The learned Judge of the High Court observes that even on earlier dates in the course of trial, the complainant failed to examine the witnesses. But that could not be a ground to dismiss his complaint for his appearance (sic absence) on one single day. The cause shown by the complainant of his absence that he had wrongly noted the date, has not been disbelieved. It should have been held to be a valid ground for restoration of the complainant. 4. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate and the High Court have adopted a very strict and unjust attitude resulting in failure of justice. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate committed an error in acquitting the accused only for absence of the complainant on one day and refusing to restore the complaint when suffcient cause for the absence was shown by the complainant." 5. The order passed by the learned court below is extremely harsh. Moreover, the learned court below has not at all considered as to whether personal attendance of the complainant was essential on the date for the progress of the case. 6. Having said so, I find merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nurpur, on 06.08.2018 in Criminal Complaint No.50-III/15, is set aside.