- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Heard Sri N. N. Singh learned counsel for the applicant at length.
(2.) THE Magistrate had dismissed a complaint by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Section 203 Cr. P. C. The argument of Mr Singh is that since the order may be treated as likely to be prejudicial to the accused, therefore, he had a right to he heard in the revision that was preferred by the complainant against the said order of dismissal. In support of his argument he has relied upon the case reported m Cr. L. J. 1982 page 1342 1 am afraid the said argument is wholly misconceived. We may refer at this stage to the case of Chandra Deo v. Prakash Chandra, AIR 1963 SC 1430 It has been held that no accused had a right or locus standi before he is summoned in a complaint case. It has further been observed in the said case that an accused can participate in the inquiry held under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The earlier part of the said case clearly lays down that the accused has no cause of action unless he has been summoned. Under the circumstances, the accused applicant was not at all a necessary party to be heard in the revision which was preferred by the complainant against the dismissal of his complaint under Section 203 Cr, P. C. This application is, therefore, without any force and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. .;