Deepak Gupta vs M.B. Rana

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1, filed by respondent-complainant, M.B. Rana, making allegations of offences under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 34 IPC against him. This petition was admitted and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed in the year 1994. This position has continued ever since that date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the complaint to say that vague and uncertain allegations have been made in the complaint and no offence under Sections 499, 500 etc. would be revealed, even if allegations are read in any possible manner. Counsel further contends that this was a second complaint and earlier one was dismissed in default on 12.6.1993, as is mentioned in the foot note of the complaint itself. In the footnote of the complaint, the following note has been given:-

Ist complaint was dismissed in default on 12.6.93 by Shri Jasbir Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana, same record be called as the documents attached with the complaint for the disposal of this complaint.

The order dated 12.6.1993, dismissing the complaint in default, is also annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. Whether second complaint in view of the earlier complaint having been dismissed, would be maintainable or not, would also be a question to be looked into. In this regard, the counsel has made reference to the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C., which provides that if the summons have been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date. Since the Magistrate in this case did not consider it appropriate to adjourn the case, dismissal of the complaint would impliedly means acquittal of the petitioner.

In view of the above position, the present petition deserves to be allowed. It is so ordered. The complaint, Annexure P-1 and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed.