ORDER :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.-By the medium of this petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) Bishnah (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), by virtue of which the learned trial court has dismissed the complaint, titled, Ajay Singh vs. Kuldeep Singh and others. The present petition has been filed on the following grounds:

(i) That the impugned order dated 18.08.2015 is ex-facie illegal as once the court has taken cognizance and issued the process against the accused, it was not within the domain of the trial court to review its own order.

(ii) That the trial court has committed patent illegality while dismissing the complaint by taking recourse to the provisions of section 204 (1-A) of Cr.P.C. on the premises that no list of witnesses is appended with the complaint, when the learned Magistrate had already taken cognizance and issued process under section 204 of Cr.P.C.

(iii) That the order impugned is against the law as breach of provisions of section 204 (1A) Cr.P.Cis not the defect that shall vitiate the issuance of process or jurisdiction of the Court.

2. Mr. Sanveer Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that once the court had taken cognizance and issued the process against the respondents, it was not open for the trial court to review its own order. He has further submitted that the provisions of section 204 (1A) Cr.P.C are not mandatory and this is a curable defect.

3. Per contra, Mr. R. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents argued that that the order impugned is valid as the complainant was under legal obligation to file the list of witnesses along with the complaint.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the complaint for commission of offence under sections 447, 379, 427, 506/34 RPC was filed by the petitioner against the respondents and the learned Magistrate after examining the petitioner as a witness, issued the notice to the respondents vide order dated 27.04.2015. Thereafter, the respondents caused their appearance before the trial court on 07.07.2015.Thetrial court vide order dated 18.08.2015 dismissed the said complaint. The orders dated 27.04.2015 and order dated 18.08.2015 are reproduced as under respectively:

Order dated 27.04.2015

“The application has been presented today by the learned counsel for the applicant in presence of the applicant. The same be registered in the concerned register. The statement of the applicant recorded. Be made part of the file. Advocate, Mulk Raj filed vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant. Be made part of the file. Office is directed to issue notice to the non-applicants.

List on 11.05.2015.”

Order Dated 07.07.2015

“Complainant is present alongwith counsel. After perusal of the complaint, it reveals that the complainant has not cited any witnesses. In the complaint, even the preliminary statements of the witnesses have not been recorded. That inadvertently, the court issued the process. So accordingly to section 204 Cr.P.C. list of prosecution witnesses has to be filed. In the instant complaint no list has been filed by the complainant, so the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to records after its due completion.”

6. It is settled law that once the Magistrate has taken the cognizance and issued the process, the Magistrate, then Magistrate has no power to review its own order under Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Adalat Prasad vs. Roop Lal Jindal and ors, 2004 (7) SCC 338. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

“16. It is true if the magistrate take cognizance of an offence, issue process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provisions of section-200 and 202, the order of the magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can