Crl.R.C.No.1451 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 04.08.2008 passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in M.P.No.122 of 2008 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein to recall the summons issued to the petitioner and to discharge him from the offence.

2. Crl.R.C.No.1499 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in M.P.No.2953 of 2007 in C.C.No.8711 of 2002, ordering for reopening of the case and issuance of summons to the petitioner herein/accused.

3. The circumstances, which necessitated the petitioner herein/A1 to file the above said Revision Cases viz., Crl.R.C.Nos.1451 & 1499 of 2008, are as follows:-

3(1) The defacto-complainant is one Amuthavanan and he was working as a Section Supervisor (O) in the Controller of Telecom Store in BSNL Office. On 08.03.2002 at about 3.30 pm, the petitioner/A1 along with two other outsiders entered into the office of the Defacto-complainant and attacked him. Hence, the complaint, dated 08.03.2002, was lodged by the defacto-complainant. After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed as against the petitioner herein and other accused in C.C.No.8711 of 2002 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

3(2) During the course of trial, since the Investigating Officer did not turn up to the Court, on 04.07.2007 the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, by exercising his powers under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., stopped all further proceedings in C.C.No.8711 of 2002 and discharged the petitioner herein/A1 from all the charges levelled against him under Sections, 341 & 323 IPC. While discharging the petitioner/A1, in the same order dated 04.07.2007 the learned Magistrate has observed as follows:- “Opportunity is given to the respondent to reopen the case if materials are available”. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein/Prosecution has filed a petition in M.P.No.2953 of 2007 in C.C.No.8711 of 2002 under Section 300(5) of Cr.PC, to reopen the case stating that sufficient materials are available to proceed against the petitioner herein/A1. The said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 02.01.2008 and the case was reopened and issuance of summons to the petitioner/A1 was ordered.

3(3) Since the case was reopened, the petitioner had filed M.P.No.122 of 2008 in C.C.No.8711 of 2002 before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, seeking to discharge him from the offence. But, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said petition by order dated 04.08.2008. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Crl.R.C.No.1451 of 2008 before this Court.

3(4) Similarly, challenging the order dated 02.01.2008 in M.P.No.2953 of 2007 in C.C.No.8711 of 2002 passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, ordering to reopen the case, the petitioner has filed Crl.R.C.No.1499 of 2008 before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate, by placing reliance on the judgment reported in 1995 CLJ 2523 (Ram Naresh Singh Vs. State of M.P.), has ordered for reopening of the case, after discharging the accused under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. But, the judgment in 1995 CLJ 2523 has not laid down the correct position of law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the judgment delivered by the Gurajat High Court reported in 1995(1) Crimes 176 (State of Gujarat Vs. Maganlal Gordhandas Mer) submitted that the order made under Section 258 of Cr.PC., is not interlocutory in nature, but it is final in nature. Once the accused is discharged, the case cannot be reopened. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab