ADITYA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SURESH NANDAN SRIVASTHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the complainant, who has filed a private complaint against non-applicant NO.1 Suresh Nandan Shrivastava, for the offences punishable under Section 448, 447, 294, 506-B, 341 & 206 I.P.C., alleging that on 9-7-1988, the non applicant No.1 forcefully broke open the shed and caused damage to the applicants jeep; that the material used for construction of the shed was taken away and that the applicant had suffered a loss of about Rs. 5,000/-. It is urged in the grounds of revision that on 24-9-1988, on the ground that the applicant was not present, the Court has discharged the non-applicant No.1 u/Section 249 Cr. P.C. The applicant filed a fresh complaint on the same day, namely, on 24-9-1988, which was entertained by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 7-3-1989.

(2.) The non-applicant No.1 filed Cr. Rev. No. 24 of 1989 before the AddI. Sessions, Judge, Panna, who allowed the revision by his order dated 10-10-1991 holding that the Magistrate had no power of review.

(3.) The decision of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge is not correct, in view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in (A.S, Gauraya v. Thakur), wherein the learned Judges held that a second complaint is permissible in law if it could be brought within the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar. The learned Judge further held that filing of a second complaint is not the same thing as reviving a dismissed complaint after recalling the earlier order of dismissal. It is further held that what the Court has to see is not whether the Code contains any provision prohibiting a Magistrate from entertaining an application to restore a dismissed complaint, but the task should be to find out whether the Criminal Procedure Code contains any provision enabling, a Magistrate to exercise, an inherent jurisdiction, which he otherwise docs not have.