JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - This is an application to quash the proceedings against the applicant which are pending in the Court of the First Additional Magistrate of Rangoon. It appears that the respondent, U. Maung Gyi laid a complaint of an offence under the provisions of Section 211, I.P.C. against the applicant before the District Magistrate of Rangoon, and this complaint, having by the District Magistrate been transferred to the Eastern Sub-divisional Magistrate for trial was dismissed by the latter under the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P.C. without any notice or process having been issued against the applicant. U. Maung Gyi then preferred an unsuccessful application in revision to the Sessions Court of Hanthawaddy, but the-fact that this application was unsuccessful does not affect the matter now before me. Having been unsuccessful in getting his complaint under Section 211, I.P.C., inquired into by the Court, U. Maung Gyi instituted a fresh complaint on the-same facts, but this time alleging that these facts constitute an offence under Section 500, I.P.C. I am now asked to quash the proceedings which are being taken on this second complaint on the ground that a second complaint of an offence under Section 500 in respect of the same facts cannot be filed when these facts have been the subject matter of a complaint of anoffence-under Section 211, I.P.C., which complaint has failed. As authority for this proposition I have been referred to the case of Prafulla Kumar v. Herendra Nath A.I.R. 1917 Cal. 708, but the distinction between that case and-the present facts is so material as to render that ruling of no assistance in deciding the point now before me. The ratio decidendi of the Calcutta case was the fact that the complaint under Section 211. I.P.C., could not be filed except after the-sanction of the Court bad been obtained and that when the Court had refused such sanction, plainly the complainant could not be allowed to file a complaint on similar facts of an offence under Section 500, I.P.C., as such action would render nugatory the provisions of Clause (b), Section 195(1), Criminal P.C. Of course, under the present Criminal Procedure Code sanction of the Court has been replaced by a complaint to be laid by the Court, and if any proceedings before a Court had preceded the filing of the complaint under Section 211, I.P.C. this complaint would not have been filed at all except by the Magistrate who had the conduct of the original proceedings. Actually in the present instance no sanction or authority of any Court was necessary to the filing of the complaint under Section 211, and this fact distinguishes the present case from the Calcutta case to which reference has been made. I have suggested to learned Counsel that actually when U Maung Gyi's complaint under Section 211 Was dismissed under the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P.C. by the Eastern Sub-divisional Magistrate, it would have been open to him to file an exactly similar complaint before another Magistrate and to try and persuade that Magistrate to take cognizance thereof, and to this proposition learned Counsel has been constrained to agree That being so, it seems to me to follow that, if U Maung Gyi could file a second complaint under Section 211, he can certainly file a second complaint on the same facts, but instead of alleging an offence under Section 211 allege an offence under Section 500. For these reasons it appears to me that the Magistrate before whom the present complaint is pending has jurisdiction to proceed therewith, and that he should dispose of it in accordance with law. It has been further suggested that the findings of the Eastern Sub-divisional Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge of the Hanthawaddy Division in the previous proceedings amount to findings that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of exceptions 8 and 9, Section 499, I.P.C. in respect of the charge which has been now laid against him. This is a matter wit