H.K.SANDHU, J. - (1.) MUNNI Devi, respondent, filed a complaint under Sections 323/325/452, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, and one Babli. The petitioners were summoned to stand trial the offences vide order dated 17th February, 1990 and they attended the Court. On 25th August, 1990, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri. That order vide which the complaint was dismissed was not assailed by the respondent, but she filed another complaint on 12th November, 1990 on the same facts. Vide order dated 1st February, 1992, the petitioners were again summoned to stand trial for the same offences. They have, thus, filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 1.2.92 on the ground that the trial Magistrate had no power to entertain the second complaint on the same cause of action after dismissing the first complaint for non-prosecution. The respondent while filing the second complaint concealed the true facts and did not mention that her first complaint had been dismissed.
(2.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondents, but no reply was filed controverting the allegations made in the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that earlier, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506, 148 read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, but this complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. Without disclosing the fact that the earlier complaint had been dismissed, the respondent filed a second complaint on the same allegations and after examining the complainant, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri, summoned the petitioners to stand trial for the same offences again vide his order Annexure P-1. In the second complaint, it was nowhere disclosed that the earlier complaint had been dismissed for want of prosecution, nor any special circumstances were alleged for submitting the second complaint. Reliance was placed in this behalf, on the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432. In this case, it was observed that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him. The inherent powers under Section 561-A are only given to the High Court and unlike Section 161 Cr.P.C., Subordinate Criminal Courts have no inherent powers. It was further observed that a second complaint could lie only on new facts or even on previous facts if a special case is made out. Perusal of the complaint, Annexure P-2 shows that respondent did not disclose the fact that her first complaint had been dismissed for want of prosecution, nor she made out a special case justifying the filing of the fresh complaint on the same facts. In the case of Darshan Singh v. Manjit Kaur, 1992(1) Recent Criminal Reports 621, the first complaint was dismissed in default and this fact was not disclosed in the second complaint, nor special circumstances were given which could justify the filing of the fresh complaint and the complaint was thus, quashed. The respondent has not denied that the second complaint was filed on the same facts, rather order Annexure P-1 shows that the first complaint was dismissed for non prosecution and the second complaint was filed on the same allegations. As there are no exceptional circumstances for entertaining the second complaint, the second complaint was an abuse of process of the Court and it cannot be said that the same was filed with the object of furthering the interest- of justice.
(3.) AS a result, I accept this petition and quash the summoning order, Annexure-1. Petition accepted.;