( 1 ) 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short ). The petitioners have prayed to recall the order dated 4-11-1988 made by this court in Criminal Revision Petition No, 398/88 and to quash the private complaint lodged by respondent-1 against them taken on file by the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore City in PCR No. 87/88.

( 2 ) ON hearing Shri Santosh Hegde, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, notice was directed to respondent-1 regarding admission and orders. Learned high Court Government Pleader was requested to assist the Court in examining the maintainability or otherwise of the petition.

( 3 ) THE record is perused. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No. l and the learned high Court Government Pleader are heard.

( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration and determination is: 1) Whether the petition is maintainable?

( 5 ) THE facts relevant to be referred to and noticed are these: shri Pratap Rai Mehta, respondent-1, lodged a complaint against Giridharilal, Smt. Sonal J. Vora, Sri Dinesh G. Vora, Smt. Bina p. Vora and Sri Shashikant G. Vora, petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively, before the iv Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore City, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 465, 468, 477a, 403, 417 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. The complaint, the copy of which is produced by the petitioners as Annexure-II to the petition, is dated 23-4-1988. Respondent-1 prayed the learned Magistrate to refer the complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) of the Code. In the alternative, he prayed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners and to deal with them in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate did not take the cognizance of the offences alleged. He referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation and report under section 156 (3) of the Code. The police on completion of the investigation submitted a 'b' Summary Final Report stating that the controversy raised was of civil dispute in nature. It appears from the record that on receipt of the copy of the `b' Summary Final Report submitted by the police, respondent-1 lodged a protest petition dated 22-8-1988, stating therein that no serious efforts had been made by the Police to investigate the complaint properly, that he had a good case to substantiate the offences alleged against the petitioners, that he had adequate oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the charges and that he would undertake to prove the charges. He prayed in the protest petition to reject the 'b' Summary Final report.

( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners, recorded the sworn statements of respondent No. l and his witness upon oath.

( 7 ) ON consideration of the allegations made in the complaint, the statements made by respondent-1 and his witness on oath and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation the learned magistrate dismissed the complaint by the order dated 15-10-1988 under Section 203 of the Code holding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners.

( 8 ) RESPONDENT-1 being dis-satisfied with the order made by the learned Magistrate dismissing his complaint, filed a Criminal revision Petition in this Court in Criminal revision Petition No. 398/88 under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code. This Court when the petition came up for admission heard the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 - the petitioner therein, allowed the Criminal revision Petition and set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint. This Court remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate with a direction to make further enquiry and dispose of