(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.
(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.