RAMPRASAD Vs. GANPATRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. One Ramprasad had filed a , complaint against Ganpatrao in respect of an offence Under Section 448, I.P.C. The accused was discharged but in revision the case was sent back for retrial. On 5th October 1933, the date fixed for hearing, the complainant was absent and the accused was dischared Under Section 259, Criminal P.C. The complainant appeared later in the day and did not ask for the restoration of the case but made a fresh complaint on the same facts. The Magistrate refused to accept this on the ground that he had previously discharged the accused. An application was made to the Sub-divisional Magistrate who returned the case to the trying Court with the remark: Please dispose of the case according to law. I shall be pleased to disouss any legal difficulties you may find in its disposal.

(2.) THE Court then registered the case and the accused applied in revision to the District Magistrate against this order. The District Magistrate considered that the Court was correct in not taking up the complaint as the accused had already been discharged on a previous complaint on the same, facts. He considered that the complainant's remedy lay in an application- against the discharge order passed Under Section 259 and directed that the proceedings of the lower Court should be set aside. Against this order, the complainant appears in revision.

(3.) THE District Magistrate's finding therefore that the trying Magistrate had no power to entertain the complaint on the same facts is incorrect. The bona fides of the present applicant is moreover established by the fact that he put in a second complaint on the same day on which the accused had been discharged owing to the complainant's absence. It is contended that at the least the applicant should be called on to show cause to explain his absence and late appearance. No analogy can be drawn from the Civil Procedure Code and no such provision exists in the Criminal Procedure Code; neither is it necessary to consider here the question whether the applicant is harassing the non-applicant by fighting a petty case no strenuously in a matter which it is contended is really one of a civil nature. That is a question for the trial Court to decide and if the complaint is considered frivolous or vexatious the remedy provided by Section 250, Criminal P.C., is available.