- (1.) This application under S. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of Criminal Case No. 454 of 1982 under Ss. 418/420, IPC.
(2.) A petition, complaint was filed against the applicants by the respondent under Ss. 418/420, IPC. Process was issued and the accused persons appeared and thereafter on 13-4-1982 the complainant was absent. The date was fixed for evidence and in absence of the complaint learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons on the date. A fresh complaint was filed and by an order dated 10-5-1982 summons was issued against the accused persons under S. 420, IPC and hence this application.
(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that the order sheet dated 18-5-1982 discloses that no evidence was adduced under S. 202, Cr. P.C. and no fresh material was supplied. He has further submitted that the order is bad in law in view of the fact that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue process on a fresh complaint on the self same incident. He has referred the case of Maj. Gen. A. S. Gauraya v. S. N. Thakur reported in 1986 All Cri 346 : AIR 1986 SC 1440). At p. 348 it has been held that the order of dismissal of a complaint by a criminal court due to the absence of a complainant is a proper order. But the question remains whether a Magistrate can restore a complaint to its file by revoking its earlier order, dismissing it for non-appearance for the complainant, and proceeded with, when an application is made by the complainant to revive it and second complaint is permissible in law if could be brought within limitation imposed by this Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Talugdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 SC 876).;