S.S.GREWAL, J. - (1.) AJIT Singh filed complaint under Section 4-B and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against Makhan Singh respondent and four others on 19.11.1986. After recording the preliminary evidence only Makhan Singh respondent was summoned to stand his trial under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code while the complaint regarding the other accused was dismissed. Makhan Singh appeared in the Court and thereafter the case was fixed for recording evidence of the complainant. The said complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution in the absence of the complainant on 16.8.1990 vide order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar.
(2.) THEREAFTER Ajit Singh filed fresh complaint on 24.8.1990 on same facts and after recording statement of Ajit Singh, a complainant, the trial Magistrate summoned Makhan Singh accused to stand his trial under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 2.7.1991. Aggrieved against the summoning order, Makhan Singh accused filed a revision petition, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide his order dated 21.5.1993 holding that the second complaint was not competent and the impugned order summoning Makhan Singh accused was set aside. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Ajit Singh has come up in revision. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the learned trial Magistrate, has gravely erred in dismissing the complaint in default even though both the parties were not present on 16.8.1990 because of mistake of date of hearing and as such the absence of the complainant was not intentional or deliberate and there were special circumstances for entertaining the second complaint and summoning Makhan Singh as an accused on the same facts on which the first complaint had been filed. Concerning the exceptional circumstances it was submitted that 11.8.90 was the date fixed in the case and as the Presiding Officer was on tour, the case was adjourned in the absence of the parties for 16.8.90 on which date the first complaint was dismissed in default whereas both the parties were under the impression that date of hearing fixed in this case was 21.8.90 and not any earlier date. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) RELIANCE in this respect has rightly been placed on the authority of the apex Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 wherein as per majority view it was held as follows :- "An order of dismissal under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances i.e. where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced." In the afore cited authority in Pramatha Nath's case (supra), it was further held, that a fresh complaint can be entertained where there is manifest error, or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is forthcoming.;