The answer to this depends critically on what kind of case you are in, and the distinction matters so much that I want to draw it clearly before offering you any reassurance.

In a complaint case — one instituted directly by a private complainant before the Vadodara Magistrate or CJM court, such as a Section 138 NI Act cheque bounce prosecution, a private defamation complaint, or a cheating complaint where the complainant has filed directly — the complainant's continued presence and active participation are essential to the prosecution. Under Section 356 of the BNSS (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. This is a genuine and available remedy in Vadodara's CJM courts, and your counsel should press for it rather than simply accepting repeated adjournments because the complainant cannot be bothered to appear.

In a State or police case — one arising from an FIR registered at a Vadodara Police Commissionerate station or any Gujarat Police station, where the prosecution is conducted by the Public Prosecutor in the name of the State of Gujarat — the complainant or informant is merely one witness among the prosecution's witnesses. Their absence does not terminate the case; the court can issue summons, warrants, and other compulsive process to bring the witness in. That said, if the complainant is the sole or critical eyewitness and persistently fails to appear, or eventually turns hostile, the prosecution's case is critically weakened and may ultimately result in acquittal where no other reliable evidence exists. Your counsel should record each non-appearance meticulously on the record and build the argument that the prosecution is unable to prove its case. The criminal advocates at the Vadodara panel of Aapka Legal Advice can identify which category applies and press the correct advantage.