The answer depends critically on what kind of case you are in, and the distinction matters enormously.

In a complaint case — one instituted directly by a private complainant before the Nashik Magistrate or CJM court, such as a Section 138 NI Act cheque bounce prosecution, a private defamation complaint, or any private complaint case — the complainant's continued presence is essential to the prosecution. Under Section 356 of the BNSS (the successor to Section 256 CrPC for summons cases), if the complainant does not appear on a hearing date without sufficient cause and the court chooses not to adjourn, the Magistrate may acquit the accused or dismiss the complaint. In Nashik's Magistrate courts, where chronic non-attendance by complainants is a recognised problem, your counsel should press for this outcome rather than accepting repeated adjournments. This is a genuine, available path to closure in your favour.

In a State or police case — one arising from an FIR registered at a Nashik police station or the Nashik Police Commissionerate, where the prosecution is conducted by the Public Prosecutor in the name of the State of Maharashtra — the original complainant or informant is merely one witness among the prosecution's witnesses. Their absence does not end the case; the court can issue summons, warrants, and other compulsive process to secure attendance. That said, if the complainant is the sole or critical eyewitness and persistently fails to appear or turns hostile, the prosecution's case is severely weakened and may ultimately result in acquittal. Your counsel should record each non-appearance meticulously on the record and build the argument that the prosecution cannot prove its case. The criminal advocates at the Nashik panel of Aapka Legal Advice can identify which category applies and press the advantage appropriately.