The answer depends on what kind of case you are in, and the distinction is important enough that I want to draw it clearly before giving you any reassurance about your position.

In a complaint case — one instituted directly by a private complainant at the Patna Magistrate's court, such as a Section 138 NI Act cheque bounce prosecution, a private defamation complaint, or any other matter where the complainant is the prosecuting party — their presence and participation are 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 and no sufficient cause is shown, the Magistrate may acquit the accused or dismiss the complaint. In Patna's busy CJM and Magistrate courts, chronic non-appearance by complainants is a recognised problem, and your counsel should press for acquittal or dismissal rather than simply waiting for the complainant to appear eventually.

In a State or police case — one arising from an FIR registered at a Patna Police Station or at the Patna Police Commissionerate, where the prosecution is conducted in the name of the State of Bihar — the original complainant or FIR informant is merely one witness among the prosecution's witnesses. Their absence does not terminate the case; the Public Prosecutor conducts the prosecution, and the court can issue summons or even warrants to compel the witness to appear. That said, if the complainant is the key witness — the only eyewitness to the alleged incident — and they persistently refuse to attend or eventually turn hostile, the prosecution's case is seriously weakened and may ultimately lead to acquittal where no other reliable evidence fills the gap. Your counsel should record each non-appearance on the record and build the argument that the prosecution is unable to prove its case. The criminal advocates at the Patna panel of Aapka Legal Advice can identify which category your case falls into and press the advantage appropriately.