BALJINDER SINGH Vs. JAGSIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that Jagsir Singh respondent No. 1 instituted a complaint against the petitioner and respondents No. 2, and 3 under Sections 324, 452, 504 506/34 Indian Penal Code. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar, summoned the accused under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 324/34 Indian Penal Code. The case was fixed for 1.12.1989. The complainant failed to appear. All the three accused were present. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint "for want of prosecution" by order Annexure P-2 dated 22nd January, 1990. The learned Magistrate relying on Kishori Lal and others v. Mst. Santosh, 1987 Crl. L J. 140. held that the complaint related to offence under Sections 452 and 324 Indian Penal Code which were cognizable or non-compoundable and could not, therefore, have been dismissed in default. He, therefore, recalled the order dismissing the complaint and restored the same to its original number. The said order of the learned Magistrate is assailed in the present revision petition.

(2.) THE contention of Shri R. K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dismissing the complaint was a final order. It could not be either reviewed or recalled or altered for the simple reason that the Magistrate had no inherent powers like the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor had powers of reviewing the order passed by him earlier. The order dismissing the complaint was a final order within the meaning of Section 362 of the Code and the Magistrate was not competent to alter the said order or recall the same. In fact, with, the dismissal of the complaint, the learned Magistrate became functus officio. He has relied on a number of authorities in support of his contention.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the learned councel.