-Private complaint is sheer misuse of process of law.

(Revision preferred against the order dated 23.9.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.4888 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.)

The revision is filed challenging the order of dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. In the private complaint, the petitioner has alleged that the accused in the said private complaint attacked the petitioner and others with hands and legs and committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore has examined three witnesses including the petitioner herein on the side of the petitioner under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal procedure and having adverted to the case in C.C.No.284 of 2002 pending on the file of the very same Court, chose to dismiss the complaint as a case had already been taken on file by the said Court based on the complaint given by one Punniyamoorthy working in Talkrose Chemicals India Limited.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore had travelled beyond the scope of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and having analysed the records available in C.C.No.284 of 2002 on its file chose to dismiss the private complaint of the petitioner. He would further argue that in the said case only four accused have been arraigned whereas in the present private complaint filed by the petitioner as many as 10 accused have been arraigned.

5. Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-

"Dismissal of complaint.--If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."

As per the above provision of law, the reasons for dismissing the complaint should be based on inference of facts arising from or disclosed by the complaint, the statements on oath of the complainant and of the other witnesses.

6. This Court, in Ashok Kumar Vs. Mariappan (1993 L.W. (Crl.) 86), has observed as follows:-

"There can be no doubt, that a complaint could be dismissed if the Magistrate thought that there was no 'sufficient ground' for proceeding. This sufficient ground 'contemplated in the Section relates to the facts which the complainant places before the Court to show about the existence of a prima facie case against the accused. In exercising his discretionary power of summary dismissal of the complaint, the Magistrate should not allow himself to be swayed away by considerations which may not be germane at that stage and all that he could do would be to consider as to whether there was prima facie evidence of a criminal offence which, in his judgement would be sufficient to call upon the alleged offender to answer. It is of course true that in coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complainant or in the evidence let in by the complaint in support of the allegations."

It is found from the above authority that the learned Judicial Magistrate should not consider the matters which are not relevant at the stage of finding whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

7. It is the settled position of law that there can be only one complaint relating to an occurrence and there cannot be many a complaint setting out the very same facts and circumstances of an occurrence. Of course, there may be an occasion where counter-complaint may be there levelling allegation against the counter-party. In that case both will have to be