The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to circumvent the bar on second revisions, and a prima facie case must be established for proceeding with a complaint.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 23.12.2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 3744 of 2021, Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order dated 05.10.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, is also being impugned, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has lodged an first information report against opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 but the police did not investigate the matter properly and submitted closure report. The applicant has preferred a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case but the complaint was also dismissed in an arbitrary manner under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 23.12.2022. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against order dated 23.12.2022 and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge without considering facts and position of law. It was stated that applicant and the private opposite parties were partners and later the opposite party No. 3 has left the said partnership and applicant No. 2 Suresh Agrawal was made partner. There were some cheques with the opposite party No. 2 and he did not return the same when he resigned from the said partnership deed. Later he has handed over the said cheques to some other persons, who have filed the cases under Section 138 N.I. Act. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the allegations made in the statements of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the private opposite parties and both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which read as under :-

Section 203 Cr.P.C.

"Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."

Section 204 Cr.P.C.

"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

7. Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exist and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the