i) Private complaint - Magistrate cannot dismiss a complaint for failure of the complainant to enter appearance and for want of prosecution.
ii) Private complaint - Complainant is not required to be personally present before Court on each date of hearing.
iii) Summon Cases - Section 256 Cr.P.C. does not apply to the procedure prescribed at the pre-summoning stage.

1. The petitioner, filed a private complaint under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 379, 506, 323, 34 of the IPC. On 8-1-2003, as the petitioner did not appear, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint, for want of prosecution. The petitioner, preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the order dated 1-10-2003, on the ground that the revisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertan the revision.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence of the petitioner /complainant did not empower the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, for want of prosecution. The petitioner had concluded his pre- summoning evidence and, therefore, the learned trial Court was required to appraise the complaint and the evidence on record and thereafter proceed to dismiss the complaint in terms of Section 203 Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) or issue process in terms of Section 204 of the Code. It is contended that Chapter XV of the Code, prescribes the procedure to be followed, namely; at the pre-summoning stage. At this stage, the stattory provisions that govern the jurisdiction of a Magistrate, do not require the personal presence of a complainant and, therefore, do not confer any power upon Magistrate to dismiss a complaint for absence of a complainant. The personal presence of the complainant is required after summoning. The consequences of a complainants absence are governed by Sections 249 and 256 of the Code. These provisions do not apply at the pre-summoning stage. It is, therefore, argued that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. It is also contended that as the learned trial Court had issued notices to secure the petitioners presence and the last notice had not been received back, served or otherwise, the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution.

3. Counsel for the respondent, however, states that a complainant, is required to be present in person on each date, during the entire course of the complaint, whether at the pre-summoning or the post summoning stage. Sections 249 and 256 of the Code mandatorily require a complainant, to be present in person on any date fixed for hearing of the complaint. As the petitioner was absent for three consecutive dates, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.

4. It is further argued that as the petitioner has already availed his remedy of revision, this petition under Section 482 of the Code, a second revision in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code, is not maintainable. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. Chapter XV of the Code, namely; Sections 200 to 203 thereof, provide the procedure to be adopted upon receipt of a private complaint. Section 200 of the Code, requires a Magistrate, taking cognizance, on a complaint to examine the complainant and his witnesses. Section 201 of the Code prescribes the procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate, not competent to take cognizance of the offence. Section 202 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to postpone the issue of process and either proceed to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation, to be made by a police officer or by such person as the Magistrate deems appropriate. Section 203 of the Code, empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint, if after considering the statements on oath or the result of the inquiry or investigation, he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further. Chapter XV, however, does not contain any provision which requires a complainant to be personally present before a Court on each date of hearing.

7. If, however, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed further, the process, is iss