LOKENATH AUDDY Vs. ASHIM KUMAR MALLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application is directed against the orders dated 25.3.1980 and 31.3.1980 passed by Sri J.K. Mitra, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in case No. C/20/80 issuing process against the petitioner and another under Sections 448/504/323 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On 24 11.1978 the opposite party filed a petition before the learned Magistrate alleging commission of offences by the petitioner and another under Sections 323/448/504 Penal Code with a prayer for ordering investigation into the alleged offences by the police under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate allowed the prayed and directed the police to investigate the case. Subsequently the police after completion of investigation submitted a report to the effect no evidence was forthcoming against the persons complained against and prayed for their discharge on 28.6.1979. The learned Magistrate accepting the police report discharged the accused persons including the petitioner. Later the petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 500 Penal Code for defamation against the opposite party on 18.1.80 and on such complaint the learned Magistrate issued process against the opposite party. Subsequently on 25.3.60 the opposite party filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under Sections 448/504/323 Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on receiving such complaint examined the complainant and his witness on 25.5.80 and thereafter on the prayer of the complainant fixed the case on 31.3.80 for further hearing and directed the putting up of the record of the earlier case which ended in discharge of the petitioner. On 31.3.80 the learned Magistrate after considering the record of the earlier case and the evidence adduced on 25.3 80 issued process against the petitioner and another under Sections 448/504/323 Penal Code.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Learned Magistrate has erred in not acting simultaneously under Sections 200 and 204 of the Code as he proceeded under Sec. 200 of the Code of 25.3.80 and thereafter under Sec. 204 of the Code of 31.3.80. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate was not competent to issue process on the subsequent complaint of the opposite party as in the proceeding arising out of the earlier complaint of the opposite party making exactly the same allegations against the petitioner he was discharged on 28.6.79 on consideration of the police report of investigation.