S.K.PHAUJDAR,J. - (1.) THE matter was heard on 7 -7 -1998.
(2.) THROUGH this application under Section 4S2, Cr. PC. the applicant desires that the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2188 of 1997 Lal Singh v. Jeewan Lal and Ors., under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506, IPC be quashed, which is now pending before the 1st Addl. CJM, Bulandshahr. It was argued that the com ­plainant (respondent No. 2) initially made a prayer before the criminal Court for an action under Section 156(3), Cr. PC. and the Court was pleased to call for a report from the police, and on receipt of the report the prayer was dismissed. Sub ­sequent thereto, and suppressing the fact of filing the above application, the com ­plainant filed a complaint or the self -same allegation. The complainant was ex ­amined. His two witnesses were also ex ­amined and upon such statements cog ­nizance was taken. It was contended that the second complaint was untenable in law and was also bad for suppression of material facts from the Court. It was fur ­ther contended that the instant case was a counter -blast to certain cases filed at the instance of the present applicant against her husband and in -laws. So far the ques ­tion of mala fide is alleged in the second submission, it can only be stated that matrimonial dispute had given rise to dif ­ferent incidents and it would be too early and hence improper to give an opinion regarding the trust of otherwise of the present case at this stage and, that too, by a Court whose powers under Section 482, Cr.PC. have been invoked. The point raised regarding com ­petence of the complaint is, however, worth consideration. It was contended that when an application is filed for action under Section 156(3), Cr. PC. It was at best complaint and when the Magistrate directed submission of a police report, it could legally be interpretated that an in ­vestigation as thought of under Section 202, Cr. P.C. was really directed. When the Magistrate declined to take action upon receipt of the police report, the order should be read as one under Section 203, Cr. P.C. and, as such, the second complaint was barred. The contention of the learned Counsel that the application for action under Section 156(3) must be read as a complaint is not acceptable because the simple prayer therein was not for proceed ­ing under Section 200, Cr. P.C. and, in fact, the Court did not proceed under Section 200 as he did not examine the complainant at all. The direction for submission of a police report cannot, therefore, be read as directing an investigation under Section 202, Cr. P.C. and, in fact, the order of the Magistrate makes it clear that he had declined to take action under Section 156(3) only and there is no reference to his refusal to summon the accused persons or dismissing the complaint.
(3.) EVEN thought it is conceded for the sake of argument that it was treated as a complaint and an investigation was directed under Section 202, Cr. P.C. and thereafter an order under Section 203, Cr. P.C. must be deemed to have been made by the rejection of the prayer under Section 156(3), a second complaint is not barred. In this context we may refer to Section 300, Cr. P.C. This section speaks of bar to a second trial in respect of an offence for which an accused has already been con ­victed or acquitted. An explanation to this section speaks that the dismissal of a com ­plaint or the discharge of the accused is not to be read as an acquittal for the pur ­pose of this section. This explanation, in my view, makes the point clear that mere dismissal of a complaint may not bar the second complaint on the same facts.;