If a complainant repeatedly misses hearings in a Delhi criminal case, the outcome depends on the case type: in a private complaint (summons case, including cheque bounce matters), the court can acquit the accused under Section 279 BNSS (formerly Section 256 CrPC); in a police case, the trial generally continues since the State prosecutes, not the complainant.

QUICK ANSWER BOX

• The outcome depends on what kind of case it is — a private complaint case or a police (FIR-based) case:

1. Private complaint (summons case) — including NI Act Section 138 cheque bounce matters — the court can acquit the accused if the complainant is absent on a date fixed for the accused's appearance, under Section 279 BNSS (formerly Section 256 CrPC), unless the court chooses to adjourn instead.
2. Private complaint (warrant case), for compoundable or non-cognizable offences — the court may, at its discretion, discharge the accused under Section 272 BNSS (formerly Section 249 CrPC) — this is different from an acquittal.
3. Police/FIR case — the complainant is usually just a witness (the "informant"), and the State prosecutes; the case does not get dismissed merely because the complainant/informant misses hearings, though their absence can weaken the prosecution's evidence.

• Courts aren't required to acquit/dismiss immediately — they can adjourn, dispense with personal attendance if the complainant is represented by a lawyer, or (from July 2024) give 30 days' notice before discharging in certain complaint cases.
• If you're the complainant and missed a hearing for a genuine reason, you can generally apply to have the dismissal/acquittal reconsidered if you show sufficient cause promptly.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. "Complainant not attending" triggers different legal consequences depending on whether it's a private complaint case or a police-report (FIR) case — this distinction is the starting point for understanding what happens next.
2. In summons cases (including the very common NI Act Section 138 cheque bounce matters), repeated complainant absence can lead directly to acquittal of the accused under Section 279 BNSS.
3. Acquittal under this provision isn't automatic on every absence — the Supreme Court has clarified it applies specifically when the complainant is absent on a date fixed for the accused's appearance, not for other purposes like producing documents.
4. Courts can dispense with the complainant's personal attendance if they're represented by a lawyer or a prosecuting officer — so being absent in person doesn't necessarily mean "not attending" in the legal sense.
5. In police/FIR cases, the case generally continues regardless of the complainant's attendance, since the State (not the private complainant) is prosecuting — but a non-cooperative complainant/witness can still seriously weaken the case.
6. If you're the complainant and your absence was for a genuine reason, courts generally allow an application to recall or set aside a dismissal/acquittal if you act quickly and show sufficient cause.

Table of Contents

1. Why This Question Doesn't Have One Single Answer
2. Relevant Legal Provisions
3. Scenario One: Private Complaint Cases (Summons Cases, Including NI Act 138)
4. Scenario Two: Private Complaint Cases (Warrant Cases)
5. Scenario Three: Police/FIR Cases
6. Latest Legal Position
7. Supreme Court Judgments
8. Court Procedure When a Complainant Is Absent
9. Jurisdiction — Delhi's Criminal Court Structure
10. Documents Required
11. Evidence Required
12. Timeline and What to Expect
13. Costs Involved
14. Common Arguments Raised by Each Side
15. Common Mistakes
16. Risks and Limitations
17. Practical Legal Advice
18. Litigation Strategy
19. Alternative Remedies
20. Step-by-Step Action Plan
21. Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why This Question Doesn't Have One Single Answer

"The complainant is not attending hearings" describes a fact pattern, not a single legal consequence — what happens next in a Delhi criminal case depends heavily on what kind of case it is:

• A private complaint case — where an individual personally filed and is prosecuting the case (the most common example being a cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but also including complaints for defamation, matrimonial cruelty, or other offences where a private party, not the police, initiated the prosecution).
• A police case (FIR-based) — where the State, through the Public Prosecutor, is prosecuting, and the "complainant" is really the informant or victim who reported the offence and now appears mainly as a prosecution witness.

These follow genuinely different legal tracks, so identifying which one applies to your situation is the essential first step before anything else in this guide will make sense for your specific case.

2. Relevant Legal Provisions

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 279 (corresponding to Section 256 of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) — governs non-appearance or death of a complainant in a summons case: if the complainant is absent on the day fixed for the accused's appearance (or any adjourned date), the Magistrate shall acquit the accused, unless the Magistrate thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing instead.
• BNSS, Section 279, proviso — allows the Magistrate to dispense with the complainant's personal attendance where they are represented by a lawyer or the prosecuting officer, or where the Magistrate considers personal attendance unnecessary — meaning the case can proceed even without the complainant physically present.
• BNSS, Section 272 (corresponding to Section 249, CrPC) — governs absence of a complainant in a warrant case involving an offence that is compoundable or non-cognizable, giving the Magistrate discretion to discharge the accused; notably, the BNSS added a requirement of 30 days' prior notice to the complainant before such a discharge is ordered — a real procedural improvement over the earlier CrPC, which had no such notice requirement.
• BNSS, Section 281 (corresponding to Section 258, CrPC) — gives the court power to stop proceedings in certain cases and, in appropriate circumstances, release the accused, which can be relevant where a complainant's continued absence has effectively stalled the case.
• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 read with Section 143 — cheque bounce complaints are tried as summons cases, so the Section 279 BNSS (Section 256 CrPC) framework directly applies when the complainant/payee doesn't attend.

3. Scenario One: Private Complaint Cases (Summons Cases, Including NI Act 138)

This is the scenario most people encounter in practice, especially given the sheer volume of cheque bounce (Section 138, NI Act) litigation in Delhi's courts. Here's what actually happens:

• If the complainant is absent on a date that was fixed for the accused's appearance, and the Magistrate doesn't think it appropriate to adjourn, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused.
• This is not automatic on every single absence — courts routinely adjourn once or more before resorting to acquittal, particularly on a first or unexplained absence.
• If the complainant is represented by an advocate, or the Magistrate is satisfied that personal attendance isn't necessary, the case can continue even without the complainant physically present — so a represented complainant's absence in person doesn't automatically trigger this provision.
• Crucially, this consequence only applies where the date in question was fixed for the accused's appearance. If the date was fixed for some other purpose (e.g., filing a document, awaiting an order from a higher court), the complainant's absence on that date does not automatically result in acquittal — the Supreme Court has been explicit about this limitation.

4. Scenario Two: Private Complaint Cases (Warrant Cases)

Where the private complaint involves an offence that is compoundable or non-cognizable and is being tried as a warrant case, a different, narrower provision applies:

• The Magistrate has discretion, not an obligation, to discharge the accused if the complainant is absent on a hearing date.
• Discharge under this provision is legally distinct from acquittal — it doesn't carry the same finality, though it does end that particular proceeding.
• A meaningful recent change under the BNSS: before discharging the accused on this ground, the Magistrate must generally give the complainant 30 days' notice — a real opportunity to explain the absence and oppose discharge, which didn't exist under the old CrPC framework. This matters because, once ordered, a discharge/dismissal on this ground isn't ordinarily open to being reconsidered by the same court.

5. Scenario Three: Police/FIR Cases

If the underlying case originated from an FIR and is being prosecuted by the State through the Public Prosecutor (as is true for the vast majority of criminal cases, including most serious offences), the person colloquially called the "complainant" is really the informant or victim, and legally functions as a prosecution witness, not the party driving the litigation. In this scenario:

• The case does not get dismissed or the accused acquitted merely because the complainant/informant misses hearings — the State continues to prosecute regardless.
• However, if the complainant/informant is a key witness whose testimony the prosecution needs, their repeated non-appearance can seriously weaken the case, potentially leading to their evidence being closed, or, in a worst-case scenario for the prosecution, an eventual acquittal for insufficient evidence if enough key testimony is missing by the time judgment is reached.
• Courts have tools to compel a reluctant witness's attendance — including issuing a summons, and, if that fails, an arrest warrant for the witness (yes, this includes a complainant/informant who is treated as a witness) to secure their appearance and testimony.

6. Latest Legal Position

• The BNSS, in force since 1 July 2024, largely preserves the substantive framework of the earlier CrPC provisions on complainant absence, while introducing genuine procedural refinements — most notably the 30-day notice requirement before discharge in certain complaint cases under Section 272.
• The Supreme Court has clarified that acquittal under the summons-case absence provision is not a mechanical, automatic consequence of any complainant absence — it applies specifically when the absence occurs on a date appointed for the accused's appearance, and the Magistrate must apply their mind to whether adjournment, rather than acquittal, is more appropriate in the circumstances.
• Where extraordinary circumstances genuinely prevented attendance (illness, force majeure events, or a stayed proceeding), courts have shown willingness to set aside a dismissal/acquittal passed without due consideration of those circumstances.
• Cases that were already pending before 1 July 2024 generally continue to be governed by the earlier CrPC framework under the BNSS's repeal-and-savings provisions, so confirming which procedural law applies to your specific case matters.

7. Supreme Court Judgments

• Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj & Ors., 2025 INSC 415 — the Supreme Court held that non-appearance of a complainant does not always result in acquittal of the accused under Section 256 CrPC (now Section 279, BNSS); what matters is the purpose for which the hearing date was fixed. If the date wasn't appointed for the accused's appearance but for some other purpose (such as showing cause against dismissal, or awaiting a superior court's order), acquittal does not necessarily follow as an automatic consequence of the complainant's absence on that date. The Court also emphasised that a Magistrate should not mechanically dismiss a complaint for default without recording satisfaction that the complainant was deliberately avoiding the proceedings, particularly where genuine, extraordinary circumstances (in that case, COVID-related restrictions and illness) explain the absence.

8. Court Procedure When a Complainant Is Absent

In a summons case (including NI Act 138 matters):

1. On the date fixed for the accused's appearance, if the complainant is absent and unrepresented, the Magistrate assesses whether to adjourn or proceed to acquit.
2. If represented by an advocate, or if the Magistrate considers personal attendance unnecessary, the case can proceed on the merits despite the complainant's personal absence.
3. Repeated, unexplained absences increase the likelihood that the court will decline further adjournment and pass an order of acquittal.

In a warrant case involving a compoundable/non-cognizable offence:

1. On a hearing date where the complainant is absent, the Magistrate may consider discharge.
2. Under the BNSS, the Magistrate should generally issue the complainant 30 days' notice before finalising a discharge on this ground, giving them a genuine opportunity to explain and oppose it.

In a police/FIR case:

1. The prosecution (Public Prosecutor) continues to conduct the case regardless of the informant/complainant's personal attendance.
2. If the complainant/informant is required as a witness and repeatedly fails to appear despite summons, the court can issue a bailable, and eventually a non-bailable, warrant to secure their attendance.
3. If, despite these efforts, the witness's testimony cannot be secured, the prosecution may need to close its evidence without that testimony, which can affect the strength of the case at judgment.

9. Jurisdiction — Delhi's Criminal Court Structure

Delhi's criminal matters are heard across several district court complexes based on where the offence occurred or the case was registered/filed:

• Tis Hazari Courts — Central and North Delhi
• Patiala House Courts — New Delhi district (and historically South/South-West matters, since reorganised)
• Karkardooma Courts — East and North-East Delhi
• Saket Courts — South and South-East Delhi
• Rohini Courts — North-West and West Delhi
• Dwarka Courts — South-West Delhi

NI Act Section 138 cheque bounce complaints, given their sheer volume, are typically handled by dedicated Metropolitan Magistrate courts (often referred to informally as "NI Act courts") within these complexes. Appeals from acquittal orders or revisions against discharge/dismissal orders lie to the Delhi High Court (or, in some cases, the Sessions Court, depending on the nature of the order and the specific statutory route).

10. Documents Required

• The complaint/case file, including the order sheet showing hearing dates and attendance record
• Any medical certificates, travel records, or other evidence explaining a genuine reason for absence
• Vakalatnama or proof that the complainant was represented by an advocate on the relevant date, if applicable
• Any prior court orders relating to adjournments, show-cause notices, or dismissal/acquittal
• For NI Act matters specifically, the underlying cheque, dishonour memo, and demand notice documentation, since these remain relevant if the matter is restored or refiled

11. Evidence Required

• To explain absence and seek recall/restoration: documentary proof of the genuine reason (medical records, proof of being out of station, proof of a stayed proceeding, or similar), along with evidence that the complainant acted promptly upon becoming aware of the dismissal/acquittal order.
• To defend an acquittal order on appeal (from the accused's side): the order sheet and record showing the complainant's pattern of absence and the Magistrate's reasoning.
• In a police/FIR case, to demonstrate a witness's willful non-cooperation: the record of summons issued and returned unserved or ignored, supporting an application for coercive process (warrant) against the witness.

12. Timeline and What to Expect

• Summons case acquittal (Section 279 BNSS): can occur relatively quickly if the complainant is absent on even one or two hearing dates without adequate explanation, since the provision doesn't require prolonged default before acquittal becomes available to the Magistrate.
• Warrant case discharge (Section 272 BNSS): now takes at least 30 days longer than under the old CrPC, due to the mandatory notice requirement before discharge.
• Restoration/recall applications: timelines vary, but courts generally expect prompt action — the longer you wait after learning of a dismissal/acquittal, the harder it becomes to get relief.
• Police/FIR case delays due to witness non-appearance: can extend the overall trial timeline substantially, particularly in already-backlogged Delhi courts, though the underlying case itself doesn't automatically end.

13. Costs Involved

• Restoration/recall application: relatively modest court fees, though advocate's fees for drafting and arguing the application can vary with complexity.
• NI Act cases: if the complaint is dismissed and the complainant needs to consider a fresh legal route, this can involve additional costs, including potential limitation issues for cheque bounce matters given the strict statutory timelines under Section 138/142 of the NI Act.
• Coercive process against an absent witness (in police cases): generally borne by the court/State machinery, not the parties directly, though delays can indirectly increase a private party's legal costs over a prolonged case.

14. Common Arguments Raised by Each Side

By the accused (seeking acquittal/discharge):

• The complainant's absence, especially if repeated and unexplained, shows a lack of genuine interest in prosecuting the case, and further adjournments would be unfair and prejudicial to the accused.

By the complainant (opposing acquittal/discharge, or seeking recall):

• The absence was for a genuine, unavoidable reason (illness, travel, a stayed proceeding), and prompt action was taken once aware of the missed hearing or resulting order.
• The date in question was not actually fixed for the accused's appearance, so the acquittal provision under Section 279 BNSS doesn't strictly apply.
• The complainant was represented by counsel, so personal absence should not have triggered acquittal in the first place.

15. Common Mistakes

• Assuming a single missed hearing automatically ends the case — courts often adjourn before resorting to acquittal or discharge, particularly on a first default.
• Failing to ensure representation by an advocate on hearing dates when personal attendance genuinely isn't possible, which is a straightforward way to avoid triggering these provisions altogether.
• Delaying an application to recall or restore a dismissed/acquitted case after learning about it — courts expect promptness, and delay significantly weakens your position.
• In police/FIR cases, complainants/informants assuming their absence has no consequence at all — while the case doesn't automatically end, non-cooperation can genuinely damage the prosecution's chances.
• Not distinguishing between "discharge" and "acquittal" — these carry different legal weight and different consequences for any future proceedings.

16. Risks and Limitations

• Once a genuine acquittal is recorded under Section 279 BNSS (Section 256 CrPC), it carries the weight of a full acquittal — challenging it generally requires an appeal, not merely explaining the absence to the same court.
• A dismissal/discharge under Section 272 BNSS, while less final than acquittal, still ends that specific proceeding and isn't automatically reconsidered by the same court without a proper legal basis.
• In NI Act cases specifically, dismissal due to complainant absence can create genuine limitation complications if the complainant later wants to pursue the matter afresh, given the strict statutory timelines governing cheque bounce complaints.
• In police/FIR cases, while the case survives a complainant's absence procedurally, a materially weakened evidentiary record due to a missing key witness can realistically affect the final outcome at trial.

17. Practical Legal Advice

• If you're the complainant and cannot attend a hearing, ensure your advocate attends and is properly authorised (vakalatnama on file) — this alone often prevents the absence provisions from being triggered at all.
• If you've missed a hearing and learned of a dismissal or acquittal, act immediately — gather your explanation and supporting documents, and consult a lawyer about a recall/restoration application without delay.
• If you're the accused and the complainant has been repeatedly absent, keep a clear record of each missed date and any explanation (or lack of one) offered, since this record supports an application for acquittal or discharge.
• In police/FIR cases, if you're the informant/victim and are struggling to attend due to genuine hardship, communicate this to the investigating officer or Public Prosecutor early — courts are often willing to accommodate genuine difficulties (e.g., video-conferencing testimony) rather than losing the evidence altogether.

18. Litigation Strategy

1. Identify precisely which type of case you're in (private summons case, private warrant case, or police/FIR case) — this single determination shapes every subsequent step.
2. If you're the complainant seeking to avoid acquittal/discharge, prioritise securing representation on every hearing date, even where personal attendance isn't feasible.
3. If seeking restoration after a dismissal, move quickly and lead with your strongest documentary proof of genuine cause for the earlier absence.
4. If you're the accused seeking to leverage a complainant's absence, build a clear record across hearings, and time your application for acquittal/discharge appropriately rather than prematurely.
5. In police cases where the complainant/witness is reluctant, consider whether procedural accommodations (video testimony, commission evidence) might secure their cooperation rather than relying solely on coercive process.

19. Alternative Remedies

• Application for recall/restoration before the same court, where a dismissal or acquittal resulted from a hearing being missed for genuine reasons.
• Revision petition to the Sessions Court or Delhi High Court, where the acquittal/discharge order itself is legally flawed (e.g., passed on a date not actually fixed for the accused's appearance, or without due consideration of genuine cause).
• Appeal against acquittal, available to a complainant in appropriate cases, though this is a more involved and time-consuming route than a prompt recall application.
• Mediation or compounding, particularly relevant in NI Act cheque bounce matters, which are compoundable and often resolve faster through settlement than continued adversarial litigation over procedural defaults.

20. Step-by-Step Action Plan

1. Determine exactly what kind of case you're dealing with — private complaint (summons or warrant case) or police/FIR case — since this determines which provision applies.
2. Check the order sheet to see exactly what happened: was the case adjourned, discharged, or was the accused acquitted?
3. If you're the complainant and there's a genuine reason for your absence, gather supporting documentation immediately.
4. Consult a lawyer promptly about filing a recall/restoration application, or, where appropriate, a revision petition challenging the order.
5. If you're the accused, confirm whether the legal conditions for acquittal or discharge were actually satisfied — particularly whether the missed date was genuinely fixed for your appearance.
6. Going forward, ensure consistent representation by an advocate on every hearing date to avoid a repeat of the issue.
7. In police/FIR cases, if you're the informant/witness, communicate proactively with the investigating officer or prosecutor about any recurring difficulty attending, rather than allowing repeated unexplained absences to accumulate.

21. Frequently Asked Questions

1. What happens if the complainant doesn't attend a Delhi criminal case hearing? It depends on the case type: in a private summons case (like a cheque bounce matter), the court can acquit the accused under Section 279 BNSS; in a warrant case for a compoundable/non-cognizable offence, the court may discharge the accused; in a police/FIR case, the trial generally continues since the State prosecutes.

2. Can a cheque bounce case be dismissed if the complainant doesn't attend? Yes — NI Act Section 138 complaints are tried as summons cases, so repeated, unexplained absence by the complainant/payee on a date fixed for the accused's appearance can lead to the accused being acquitted under Section 279 BNSS (formerly Section 256 CrPC).

3. Does the case end automatically after just one missed hearing? Not necessarily — courts commonly adjourn, especially on a first or explained absence, before proceeding to acquit or discharge.

4. Can the complainant's lawyer attend instead of the complainant personally? Yes — if the complainant is represented by an advocate, or the Magistrate considers personal attendance unnecessary, the case can proceed without the complainant physically present.

5. What's the difference between discharge and acquittal due to complainant absence? Discharge (available in certain warrant cases) is a less final outcome than acquittal (available in summons cases); acquittal carries the full legal weight of a finding that the accused isn't guilty, which is significantly harder to reopen.

6. Can a dismissed or acquitted case be restored if the complainant had a genuine reason for missing the hearing? Generally yes, if the complainant acts promptly and can show sufficient cause — courts, including the Supreme Court, have been willing to set aside dismissals passed without proper consideration of genuine, extraordinary circumstances.

7. Does the complainant's absence matter in a police FIR case? The case itself doesn't get dismissed merely because the complainant (informant) is absent, since the State prosecutes — but if the complainant is also a key witness, their non-appearance can weaken the evidence and, in serious cases, affect the final outcome.

8. Can the court force a reluctant witness or complainant to appear? Yes — in appropriate cases, courts can issue summons and, if ignored, warrants (including non-bailable warrants) to secure a witness's attendance, which can apply to a complainant/informant functioning as a prosecution witness.

9. Is there now a notice requirement before discharge for complainant absence? Yes — under the BNSS (effective 1 July 2024), a Magistrate is generally required to give the complainant 30 days' notice before ordering discharge on this ground in certain complaint cases, unlike the earlier CrPC framework.

10. Does the acquittal happen no matter what date was missed? No — the Supreme Court has clarified that acquittal under this provision applies specifically to absence on a date fixed for the accused's appearance, not on dates fixed for other purposes.

11. Can the accused apply for acquittal proactively if the complainant keeps missing hearings? Yes — the accused (or their counsel) can bring the pattern of absences to the court's attention and request that the case proceed to acquittal or discharge, rather than continuing to be adjourned indefinitely.

12. Should I consult a lawyer if I'm the complainant and worried about missing hearings? Yes — ensuring consistent representation and understanding exactly which provision applies to your case type is exactly the kind of preventive step a lawyer can put in place before an absence becomes a problem.

Conclusion

Whether "the complainant is not attending hearings" spells trouble for a Delhi criminal case depends entirely on what kind of case it is — a private summons case (where acquittal is a real, near-term risk under Section 279 BNSS), a private warrant case (where discharge is discretionary and now requires 30 days' notice), or a police/FIR case (where the trial continues regardless, though a missing witness can still hurt the prosecution). The most important practical safeguard, whichever category applies, is simple: ensure consistent representation on every hearing date, and if an absence does happen for a genuine reason, act quickly to explain it and seek recall rather than letting the matter sit. Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have shown they won't mechanically penalise a genuinely explained absence — but they do expect promptness and a properly documented reason.

This article provides general legal information based on Indian criminal procedure law as of mid-2026 and is not a substitute for advice from a qualified advocate on the specific facts of your case.