1. - From the perusal of the impugned order dated 4.5.1998, it is apparent that the trial court had dismissed the complaint for non appearance of the complainant though, the evidence led by the complainant as per Sections 200 & 202 Cr.PC. was complete and the process had been initiated to procure the presence of the accused after taking cognisance of the matter under Section 204, Cr.PC. on 4.5.1998 i.e. the date which was fixed for service of the accused, the complainant could not attend the court notwithstanding the fact that it was a summons case and the procedure as envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for dealing with the summons cases is different than that of warrant cases. In summons cases, it is not necessary that the complainant should be present on all dates of hearing whereas, in the instant case it is not a question of complainant being absent for the reason or any wilful default but, on the contrary the trial court should have taken note of this fact that since the process had already been initiated after taking cognisance against the accused as per Section 204, Cr.PC. it was the accused who presence was required and not the complainant who sho