K. HARILAL, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.1513 of 2010 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (EO), Ernakulam. The order passed under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. dismissing the said complaint is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that on 26.6.2012, when the case was taken up for hearing, the complainant was absent and there was no representation for the complainant. So also, in spite of repeated directions to serve the copy of the complaint to the learned counsel for the accused, the said direction was also not complied with. In that context, the court below dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after the issuance of the process and appearance of the accused there under, no complaint can be dismissed under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C., but the accused can be acquitted under Section 256(1) of the Cr. P.C. for non-appearance of the complainant. On a close reading of Sections 204(4) and 256(1) of the Cr.P..C. in juxtaposition, I find that the submissio