PARAS LALL @ PARSURAM PRASAD SHRIVASTAV SON OF LATE BHOLA LALL Vs. HANS NATH LALL SON OF LATE SHEO NANDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 31.10.1998 passed in Complaint Case No. 1007 of 1998/Misc.58 of 1998 by Shri P.C. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. By the said order, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on same and similar allegation, the opposite party No. 1 had earlier filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 440 of 1991. In the said complaint case, by order dated 25.6.1993, court had directed for issuance of summons after conducting enquiry. Subsequently, the said complaint petition was dismissed on 20.10.1993 due to none prosecution of the case. However, by order dated 7.12.1993, the learned Magistrate recalled its earlier order and restored the complaint petition to its original file.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of recall/restoration dated 7.12.1993, petitioners filed a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 30 of 1994/10 of 1994. The said revision petition stood dismissed. Petitioners, thereafter, approached this Court, while invoking its writ jurisdiction vide Cr. W.J.C. No. 347 of 1997. Before the writ court, the order of restoration/recall as well as order of revisional court, both were challenged on the ground that the learned Magistrate after dismissing the complaint petition was not having any authority to recall its own order or restore the complaint petition. It was also argued that the allegations levelled in the complaint petition was primarily civil in nature.