PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. RANJIT DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Sri Ranjit Debnath instituted a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 420/406 etc. IPC and after holding enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused persons under Sections 420/468 IPC vide order dated 24.10.96 passed in CR 1657/96. While the case was pending for appearance of the accused persons, the complainant remained absent on two consecutive dates and thereafter by order dated 9.9.97 the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter the complainant appeared and filed an application for restoration of the complaint case and vide impugned order dated 22.1.98 the learned Magistrate revived/restored the complaint back to file and hence the present revision.

(2.) At the outset, it is submitted that the complaint case was dismissed under the provisions of Section 249 Cr. P.C., but in the facts and circumstances of the present case the. pro visions of Section 249 Cr. PC. were not applicable.

(3.) It is submitted that the offence under Section 420/468 IPC. were cognizable and non-compoundable and the case was also not fixed for hearing on 9.9.97 and hence the complaint could not have been dismissed under Section 249 Cr. PC.