Lekh Raj vs Pardeep Sharma

V.M. Jain, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 16.9.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide which the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420, IPC was dismissed.

The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that previously the complainant had filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420, IPC. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate ordered the summoning of the accused only u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Subsequently, the said complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution on 3.3.1994, as no one had appeared on behalf of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint dated 17th March, 1994 for the offences u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420, IPC. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the present complaint on the ground that by virtue of the order dated 3.3.1994 dismissing the previous complaint, the accused stood acquitted in the said case and that the second complaint was not maintainable. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant filed the present revision petition in this Court.

After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and after perusing the record, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is not disputed before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the previous complaint was also u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420, IPC. It is also not disputed that in the previous complaint accused was summoned only u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Subsequently, the said complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution, which amounted to acquittal. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, second complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable. So far as Section 420, IPC is concerned, if the accused was not summoned in the previous complaint u/s 420, IPC, in my opinion, second complaint u/s 420, IPC would also not be maintainable on the same cause of action.

At this stage the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would be challenging the order dated 3.3.1994 vide which the previous complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. He may do so, if so advised, in accordance with law. So far as the present revision petition is concerned, the same being without any merit is hereby dismissed.