AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Horwill, J.—The petitioner filed a complaint before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Karkal, charging the accused with certain offences for
which the accused could be tried only under the warrant procedure. Notice was ordered to the accused, and the case was posted to a certain date
for the appearance of the accused. On that day, the petitioner was absent, and so the Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction u/s 259 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and discharged the accused. The petitioner thereupon filed another complaint which the Magistrate refused to accept for two
reasons; one was that the complainant appeared at 5 p.m., which was after the hour at which papers are received in Court, and the other was that
an application to receive a complaint was tantamount to a review application, which the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant.
As the accused was only discharged, there was nothing to prevent the complainant from filing a fresh complaint; and if he does so, the complaint
must be disposed of in the same way as a first complaint. If the Magistrate has already considered the matter on its merits, he would ordinarily
dismiss the second application, but he cannot refuse to consider it on its merits if he has not already done so. The Stationary Magistrate had
therefore jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner''s second complaint and he should have done so.
The matter went in revision to the District Magistrate, who seemed to think that the Sub-Magistrate disposed of the second complaint on its
merits, but it is pretty clear from the Magistrate''s order that he did. not.
As there is no restriction on the number of complaints that the petitioner may file, it is not necessary for me to set aside the previous orders and
direct the Stationary Sub-Magistrate to entertain the second complaint. The petitioner is at liberty to file a third complaint if he so wishes; and the
Magistrate must then dispose of it according to law.