Jagdish Chandra, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (in short the Code ) has been filed by the petitioner Chander Mohan Chawla assailing the order dated 11th October, 1985 passed by Smt. Pratibha Rani, Metropolital Magistrate, Delhi, as also the order dated 2nd May, 1985 passed by Shri V S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. I Babu Lal filed a complaint against the petitioner Chander Mohan Chawla and respondent No. 2 Madan Lal under section 183/ 457/468/471/34 Indian Penal Code on 6th October, 1981 and the same was pending before the learned Magistrate Smt. Pratibha Rani at the stage of pre-charge evidence till 20lh May, 1985. That complainant was fixed for hearing on 21st May, 1985 when neither the complaint nor his counsel was present and so the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and consequently dischnrged the petitioner and respondent No. 2

( 3 ) COMPLAINANT/respondent No. 1 Babu Lal moved an application on 1st July, 19s5 for fie restoration of his complaint before learned Magistrate who vide impugned order dated 11th October, 1985 allowed the same and restored the complaint.

( 4 ) THE petitioner, feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, went up in revision under section 397 read with section 392 of the Code, which was heard by Shri V. S. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge who dismissed the revision.

( 5 ) THE petitioner felt dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders and has now invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code for the quashing of both these orders.

( 6 ) THE impugned order dated 21st May, 1985 of the learned Magistrate shows that she bad dismissed the complaint under section 249 of the Code and both the accused persons were discharged. The learned Magistrate in her impugned order was of the opinion that the order of dismissal of the complaint in default of ths complainant was not a final order and so the trial court was empowered to review that order and for coming to this conclusion relied upon two judgments of this Court.

( 7 ) IN the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that section 249 of the Code was not at all attracted and thus the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in default and thus as there was no order of dismissal in default in the eye of law, such an order could always be set aside and/or, in other words, the complaint could well be restored by the learned Magistrate and with these observations he found no ground to interfere wilh the restoration order passed by the learned Magistrate and consequently dismissed the revision petition.

( 8 ) SECTION 249 of the Code reads as follows : "249. Absence of complainant.-When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the beaming of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwith- standing anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused. "

( 9 ) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge after noting this provision of law observed that this provision of law was not applicable as the contingencies laid down therein were not in existence and it was this very reason that he held that the existence and it was for this very reason that he held that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in default under that provision of law and that under the circumstances the order of dismissal in default was non est. This approach on the part of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is erroenous. The order of dismissal in default passed by the learned Magistrate was simply illegal and could not be said to be without jurisdiction and thus non est and for that reason could not be ignored by her so as to set aside the same and restore t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document