SANTOKH SINGH Vs. GEETANJALI WOOLLEN PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Geetanjali Woollen Private Limited instituted a complaint against M/s. Jai Guru Dev Spinning Mills Private Limited, Kurukshetra and two others under Section 405, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On 9-1-1991 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra dismissed the complaint in default. Thereafter the complainant filed another complaint and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra passed a summoning order on 5-2-1992 and this summoning order has been challenged by means of the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The Order dismissing in default, which was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, is reproduced as under :-

(3.) On behalf the present petitioner, who is one of the accused, it has been argued that once a complaint was dismissed, the complainant was not entitled to institute a second complaint much less there was any justification for the summoning order dated 5-2-1992. The perusal of the impugned order dated 5-2-1992 shows that the Judicial Magistrate realise that a complaint for cognizable offences was dismissed in default though the summoning order was issued after recording of the evidence and application of the mind. It was in these circumstances that on a second complaint, the present summoning order was passed on 5-2-1992. On behalf of the petitioner attention has been invited to Sanjeev Bansal v. Rajinder Parshad, 1991(1) Rec Cri R 601, but in the present case the facts are distinguishable in as much as the complainant has instituted another complaint and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was satisfied that it was a fit case for summoning of the accused as misappropriation of the valuable yarn weighing 14257 Kgs. was involved. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to 'Parmatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876, wherein it has been held that an order of dismissal under Section 203, Cr. P.C. is no bar to the entertaining of the second complaint on the same facts but will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. The conclusion is that the interference of this Court is not called for an the present petition moved under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is hereby dismissed.