P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint was filed on 19th April, 1972 against the Respondent in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate Bijnor for having committed offences under Sections 395, 323/34 and 149 IPC. A report was called for by the Munsif Magistrate. This report was not submitted by the Station Officer, Police Station Nangal. On 31st July, 1972, which was the date fixed in the case, the complainant and his counsel failed to appear with the result that the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter a second complaint was filed by the applicant. Summonses were issued by the Magistrate and 27th April, 1974 was fixed for production of evidence. On that date, the complainant and the accused were present, but the witnesses in support of the prosecution failed to appear. The Magistrate, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 27th January, 1974, Annexure '1' dismissing the complaint. On 1st May, 1974 a third complaint was filed in the Court of the Munsif -Magistrate. An objection was raised on behalf of the Respondents that this complaint was not maintainable. The Magistrate up -held that objection vide his order dated 30th July, 1974. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor, which was also dismissed on 31st July, 1975. Hence the present application.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the affidavits and annexures on the record. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the dismissal of the second complaint did not bar the filing of a third complaint as has been erroneously held by the Court below. He has brought to my notice a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in, 1954 ALJ 409 State through Ram Daur and others. I agree with the submission of the applicant's counsel, that dismissal of the second complaint does not in law bar the filing of a third complaint. The question, however, is whether it would foster the ends of justice to allow the continuance of the third complaint in the circumstances of the present case. The incident complained to related to 20th March, 1972. 41/2 years have gone by since then. The allegations in the first complaint were that the applicant was returning from village Padli to his village after selling sugar -cane when he was surrounded by the Respondents and beaten with fists and kicks. He was deprived of a sum of Rs. 210/ - from his pocket. The allegations in the complaint, to my mind indicates an offence which is not of a serious nature. The first complaint was filed as early as 19th April, 1972. The complainant was not diligent enough to prosecute this complaint, with the result that it was dismissed on 31st July, 1972. He did not file any revision against this order. The second complaint was filed thereafter. Summonses were issued by the Magistrate. On 27th April, 1974 the complainant and the accused appeared, but the witnesses of the prosecution failed to appear. The impugned order was passed by the Magistrate on 27th April, 1974. The applicant again did not challenge that order by way of a revision. The third complaint was filed on 1st May, 1974. It is true that in law it may not have been necessary for the applicant to challenge the impugned orders dated 31st July, 1972 and 27th April, 1974 by way of a revision, before he could claim a right to file a third complaint on 1st May, 1974, but while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the Court has to be satisfied that revival of the proceedings would be in the interest of justice. A litigant who does not pursue his remedies provided to him by law and does not prosecute his cases with due diligence and care, is, in my opinion, not entitled to the indulgence of this, Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. After 41/2 long years it would definitely amount to harassment of the Respondents, if the third complaint is allowed to continue at this belated stage.
(3.) FOR the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice does not warrant interference with the impugned orders of the Magistrate dated 30th July, 1974 as also the order of the Sessions Judge, Bijnor dated 31st July, 1975, even though they may not be strictly in accordance with law. Inherent powers of the Court are exercised to foster the interest of justice and not to satisfy the vanity of the complainant who wishes to harass the Respondents by successive filing of the complaints.;