The withdrawal of a complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused, and a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action is not maintainable. The revisional court's power is limited to procedural irregularities or overlooked evidence.

JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - Challenge in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the order dated 26.5.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rewari allowing the revision petition filed against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli in complaint case No.144 dated 26.7.2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, whereby the present petitioners were discharged.

Factual aspect:

2. It is a case where a complaint has been filed by the respondent/complainant-Sumer Singh against the present petitioners, namely, Kamal Singh and Satpal Singh and one accused, namely, Smt. Mamta Yadav, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on 26.07.2012. The present petitioners were summoned vide order dated 14.07.2015 by the Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli for offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC whereas accused Mamta Yadav was summoned for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Thereafter, the pre-charge evidence was led and charges came to be framed on 16.11.2016, thereby discharging the petitioners and framing charges against Mamta Yadav for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

3. The complainant/respondent herein went up in revision against the aforesaid order of discharge on 28.04.2017, Annexure P-3, which was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2017, Annexure P-4, whereby the Revisional Court at Rewari has directed the trial Court to pass an order afresh on the issue of framing of the charge.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the present petitioners have filed revision petition for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 26.05.2017, Annexure P-4, passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Rewari.

5. At the outset, the learned Senior counsel has stated that the the complainant- respondent is a co-villagers of the petitioners, who bore a grudge against them, on account of which, the present complaint was filed by him. Otherwise, he was neither a candidate for the job that Mamta Yadav secure nor had he been denied obtaining of any educational qualification as acquired by Mamta Yadav or the domicile acquired by her. Further, Mamta Yadav has not challenged either the framing of the charge against her or the impugned order and is facing the trial.

6. He also submitted that it may be worth a notice that Mamta Yadav against whom the charge has been framed had neither challenged the same before the revisional court nor is a petitioner before this Court.

Submissions:

7. The First plank of arguments of the learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner is that the complainant had earlier filed a similar complaint with same set of allegations against the present petitioners and one Mamta Yadav on 28.08.2007, which was withdrawn vide order dated 11.06.2009, Ex. D/3, without seeking liberty to file afresh. As such, the complaint filed on 26.07.2012 by the complainant-respondent was not maintainable. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the learned Revisional Court has recorded a finding that as per the record, the objection regarding the second complaint not being maintainable, was not taken before the learned Trial Court, which he submits, is contrary to the finding which was returned by the trial Court, which was to the effect that no person can be allowed to misuse the process of law and if once a criminal complaint was instituted and withdrawn without any liberty to file fresh on same facts, and if such complaint is re-instituted, then there would be no end to the litigation. In this regard he has taken this Court through para 25 of the impugned judgment and the finding of the trial Court in para 8 in this regard, which reads thus:-

'8. Coming to culpability of accused No.1, question of double qualification and taking advantage thereof cannot be gone into because earlier criminal complaint Ex.D1 has been withdrawn by present complainant vide order Ex.D3. Similar allegations were levelled and after two yaers of i