UMRAO SINGH Vs. SANTA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint was filed on 19th April, 1972 against the Respondent in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate Bijnor for having committed offences under Sections 395, 323/34 and 149 IPC. A report was called for by the Munsif Magistrate. This report was not submitted by the Station Officer, Police Station Nangal. On 31st July, 1972, which was the date fixed in the case, the complainant and his counsel failed to appear with the result that the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter a second complaint was filed by the applicant. Summonses were issued by the Magistrate and 27th April, 1974 was fixed for production of evidence. On that date, the complainant and the accused were present, but the witnesses in support of the prosecution failed to appear. The Magistrate, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 27th January, 1974, Annexure '1' dismissing the complaint. On 1st May, 1974 a third complaint was filed in the Court of the Munsif -Magistrate. An objection was raised on behalf of the Respondents that this complaint was not maintainable. The Magistrate up -held that objection vide his order dated 30th July, 1974. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor, which was also dismissed on 31st July, 1975. Hence the present application.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the affidavits and annexures on the record. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the dismissal of the second complaint did not bar the filing of a third complaint as has been erroneously held by the Court below. He has brought to my notice a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in, 1954 ALJ 409 State through Ram Daur and others. I agree with the submission of the applicant's counsel, that dismissal of the second complaint does not in law bar the filing of a third complaint. The question, however, is whether it would foster the ends of justice to allow the continuance of the third complaint in the circumstances of the present case.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice does not warrant interference with the impugned orders of the Magistrate dated 30th July, 1974 as also the order of the Sessions Judge, Bijnor dated 31st July, 1975, even though they may not be strictly in accordance with law. Inherent powers of the Court are exercised to foster the interest of justice and not to satisfy the vanity of the complainant who wishes to harass the Respondents by successive filing of the complaints.