The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of the first complaint and the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the Code, due to non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel, resulted in a final order. The court emphasized that exceptional circumstances must exist for entertaining a second complaint on the same allegations.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. Cri Misc. No. 2066-M of 1992, filed by Jitender Bajaj, Resident Editor, Jan Satta, Chandigarh and Cri. Misc. No. 5686-M of 1992, filed by Pawan Kumar Bansal and Jitender Bajaj, News Correspondent and Resident Editor, respectively, of Jan Satta, Chandigarh.

2. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing of second criminal complaints, filed by respondent No. 2, in which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 500, IPC on the same set of facts and allegations, as were levelled in the first complaints, which were dismissed for non-appearance of the complainants and their counsel under Section 256, Cr. P.C. and the petitioners were acquitted.

3. The question of law involved in both these petitions is :

Whether the second complaint in a summons case filed on the same set of facts and allegations is maintainable, when the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel under Section 256, Cr. P.C. when the accused was present in the Court and the Judicial Magistrate decided not to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day and acquitted the accused, particularly when the said order of dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused has become final as the same was not challenged by the complainant either in appeal/revision or under Section 482 of the Code ?"

4. Before considering the aforesaid question, it is necessary to give certain facts of this case, which are being taken from Cri. Misc. No. 2066-M of 1992. On 3-2-1988, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) against the petitioner under Sections 499/500/501/502 read with Section 34, I.P.C., alleging therein that on 8-12-1987, a news item was published in the daily news paper "Jan Satta" in which it was alleged that respondent No. 1 and Prof. Sampa, Singh, Minister, Haryana, had gone to Shimla on 20-9-1987 and stayed there for three days, where they met some colonizers of Gurgaon and supporters of Bhajan Lal and had struck a deal in which crores of rupees had changed hands. On the said complaint, the petitioner was summoned under Section 500, IPC by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, after considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant. On 11-7-1988, the petitioner (accused) appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and furnished his bail bonds. On the said day, though the accused was present in the Court, but neither the complainant nor his counsel was present, therefore, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. The complainant did not file any appeal or revision or any petition under Section 482 of the Code for setting aside the said order by giving the reasons of his non-appearance on the said day. The aforesaid order dated 11-7-1988 (Annexure P-2) has, therefore, attained finality. Though in this order, it has not been mentioned by the Judicial Magistrate that the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 256 of the Code, but this order appears to have been passed in view of this provision. Section 256 of the Code reads as under :-

-

256. Non-appearance or death of complainant -- If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.

5. Since on 11-7-1988, in a s