Section 256 CrPC requires judicial consideration before dismissing a complaint for non-appearance, and unexplained dismissal is unsustainable.

Section 256 CrPC permits acquittal for a complainant's absence only after the Magistrate considers whether adjournment is warranted and whether the complainant's personal attendance is necessary. The discretion must be exercised fairly and the order must show application of mind to those statutory requirements. Where the Magistrate dismisses a complaint for non-appearance without recording reasons or examining whether the complainant's presence is essential, the dismissal is unsustainable. The complaint was restored and remanded for decision according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant without considering the requirements of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 256 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to acquit the accused when the complainant is absent, but the power is controlled by the duty to consider whether the hearing should be adjourned for some reason and whether the complainant's personal attendance is necessary. If attendance is unnecessary, the Magistrate may dispense with it and proceed with the case. The discretion under the provision must be exercised fairly and judiciously, and the order should disclose application of mind to these requirements.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was unsustainable because the Magistrate did not record reasons or consider whether the complainant's presence was essential for progress of the case; the complaint was rightly restored and remanded for decision in accordance with law.

---