The discretion to discharge the accused under Section 249 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and not automatically upon the complainant's absence.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 17.11.2018passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.199/18 titled "Rani v. Rakesh", and order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned CMM (East), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.55393/16 titled "Rani v. Rakesh".

2. Brief facts of the present case, as disclosed in the petition, are that the petitioner and respondent were married as per Hindu rites and customs in the year 1998, however, on 28.05.2014, the petitioner had filed a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondent had committed offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') by marrying once again during the lifetime of the petitioner. Learned CMM vide order dated 31.05.2014 had taken cognizance under Section 494 IPC and the petitioner had also led pre- summoning evidence. On 30.03.2015, CW Teena had been examined as a witness in pre-summoning evidence led by the petitioner, and vide order dated 04.07.2015, the Court had summoned the respondent. Thereafter on 11.01.2016, the petitioner had got examined in chief in pre-charge evidence, and the cross-examination had been deferred at the request of the respondent and the matter had been adjourned to 05.03.2016. As stated, between 05.03.2016-16.04.2018, the matter was adjourned from time to time and in this period, on nine dates of hearing, the petitioner was present, and was ready for cross- examination on six dates of hearing, but could not be cross-examined due to some reason or another. On 08.08.2018, the learned CMM (East) Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, had passed an order closing the pre- charge evidence in the absence of petitioner and discharging the accused/respondent. The relevant portion of order dated 08.08.2018 reads as under:

"...Matter is at the stage of pre charge evidence since 11.01.16, however till date the complainant has only examined in chief, cross was deferred however, she has not appeared for further cross examination.

Even on the last date of hearing none has appeared on behalf of the complainant, sufficient opportunities have been given to the complainant for leading pre charge evidence, however from her conduct it appears that she is not interested in prosecuting the present complaint.

Pre charge evidence is accordingly closed. Since there is no evidence against the accused at pre charge stage, the accused stands discharged in the present case.

Bail bond/surety bond stands cancelled and discharged..."

3. Thereafter, on 28.08.2018, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision No. 199/18 before the learned District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi seeking setting aside of order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned CMM. By virtue of order dated 17.11.2018, the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi had dismissed the said revision petition on the ground that the petition was not maintainable. The relevant portion of order dated 17.11.2018 reads as under:

"7. Aforesaid case laws make it amply clear that irrespective of language used by ld. CMM (East) in the impugned order, effect of dismissal of complaint was statutory acquittal of the accused. In the present case, in effect, complaint was dismissed on account of non-appearance of complainant and thereby, closing her opportunity to lead pre charge evidence. The effect of such order remains dismissal of complaint and consequent acquittal of the accused. Therefore, I find that this revision, petition is not maintainable. Hence, petition is dismissed..."

4. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, assailing the aforesaid orders.

5. The case set out by the petitioner is that it is settled law that an order framing charge or discharging an accused person, whether under Secti