A Magistrate is not bound to entertain a fresh complaint on the same facts without any fresh material after he has dismissed a complaint filed by the complainant on the same date.

B.D.Singh, J.

1. This application under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the sole petitioner against the order dated 22-8-69 of the Sub-divisional Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner.

2. In order to appreciate the point for consideration in this application it will be necessary to mention briefly the facts. On 11-8-69 one Sardha Pahan filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate stating therein that about a month earlier the petitioner got cut six Sarna Sal Trees in Village Dulli. Police Station Khelari in the district of Ranchi by employing certain persons. Those trees, according to the complainant, were pious and religious and they were worshipped by the community to which the complainant belongs, as deities. The complainant along with the witnesses named in the petition went to the petitioner and requested him not to get those trees cut. Thereupon the petitioner threatened the complainant and his witnesses with dire consequences. The complainant along with his witnesses then went to opposite party Ram Das Singh, Mukhia of the village and informed him about the incident, who directed them to go to the police station or to the Court. Then the complainant along with the witnesses and Mukhia went to the Ranger of the forest. The Ranger also did not seize the pieces of the cut trees. It was further stated in the complaint petition that on the previous night, i.e., on the night between the 10th and 11th August, 1969, the petitioner lifted the cut timber trees on a truck. The complainant, therefore, prayed that action might be taken against the petitioner under Sections 379 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate examined the complainant Sardha Pahan on solemn, affirmation as required under Sec.200 of the Code and sent a copy of the complaint to Shri J. P. Singh, Magistrate, first class, for enquiry and report by the 1st of September, 1969.

3. In the meantime on the 22nd of August, 1969, the said complainant filed a petition before the Magistrate stating inter alia that at the instance and the threat given by the Mukhia Ramdas Singh and one Brajkishore Prasad Sahu, he had filed the said complaint on the 11th of August, 1969 against the petitioner and the entire allegations made therein were incorrect and had been made at the instance of the said Mukhia and Brajkishore Prasad Sahu. Along with the said petition he also filed affidavits of four persons named as witnesses in the complaint petition in support of his contention.

4. The learned Magistrate having considered the petition and the affidavits and after hearing the lawyer of the complainant dismissed the petition of complaint under Sec.203 of the Code and recalled the enquiry which he had directed to be made by Shri L. P. Singh. A copy of the said order dismissing the complaint is marked as Annexure 1 to this petition. It will be useful to quote a portion of the observation which reads :

".....It is regretted that a poor and innocent tribal was made an instrument for filing a false case against a responsible police officer. The conduct of particularly Mukhia is deplored. In view of the fact that the complainant is a tribal who naturally succumbed to the pressure of the Mukhiya and Braj Kishore Sahu and also in view of the fact the ultimately the complainant was unable to shake off the undue and unreasonable pressure of the Mukhiya and others and has gathered courage to seek the whole truth before the Court, I do not consider in necessary to take action to prosecute him Under Sec.211 I. P. C....."

5. On the same date, just after the complaint of Sardha Pahan was dismissed, the Mukhia Ramdas Singh filed another petition of complaint before the same Magistrate substantially on the very same allegation as was made by Sardha Pahan in his complaint petition. The Sub-divisional Magistrate entertained this complaint petition filed by the Mukhia and e