JAGMOHAN BAGLA Vs. DAYANAND AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the issuance of the process and also the order dated the 12th January, 1987 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for dis ­charge under section 245 sub -section (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had preferred this application under section 401/482 if the Criminal Procedure Code. On the 12th December, 1984 the complainant was present in Court and was examined. No other witness was present. After perusing the petition of com ­plaint and the recorded evidence the learned Magistrate was of the view that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused person under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on the 12th January, 1985 inasmuch as the complainant was absent on calls without tadbir and as the complainant was absent on repeated calls and inasmuch as the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code being a compoundable one, the learned Magistrate under section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code discharged all the accused persons. Thereafter an application was made on the 13th  February, 1985 by the complainant for revival of the case and after hearing the learned Lawyer of the complainant the case was revived to the original file and necessary summons were issued upon the accused person.

(2.) THE petitioner contended that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ex ­ceeded his jurisdiction in passing such order by reviving the case and by issuing fresh pro ­cess against the petitioner, when by his final order dated the 12th January, 1985 the learned Magistrate discharged the accused person. Hence, under the Code, the learned Magistrate had no power to revive the case.

(3.) THE case is thus disposed of.