K.V.S. Soundarajan vs A.G. Santhanam

Singaravelu, J.—This is an application under S. 482, Crl. P.C., by the accused for quashing the private complaint in C.C. No. 2891 of 1982 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.

The facts are briefly these:- The respondent-complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein for the alleged offence under Ss. 500 and 501 of the I.P.C. The case was taken on file and summons were issued to the accused, who appeared before the Court on the date of hearing on 29th March, 1982. On that day, both the complainant and his counsel were absent, whereupon the learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner/accused as also the co-accused under S. 249, Crl. P.C. It appears that subsequently the complainant filed a petition on 12th April, 1982 for restoring the complaint on files and the learned Magistrate restored the same without notice to the petitioner herein. The complainant had been examined and it is posted for further evidence. The first accused is aggrieved with the order of restoration and the proceeding of the trial and it is contended on his behalf that the restoration is illegal and that the petitioner should have been acquitted under S. 256, Crl. P.C. instead of discharge under S. 249, Crl. P.C.

Learned Counsel for both parties elaborately argued the matter and I have perused the papers on record. I am satisfied that this case calls for interference by the High Court under S. 482, Crl. P.C. Though the accused were discharged under S. 249, Crl. P.C. it virtually amounts to an acquittal under S. 256, Crl P.C. This is a summons case and therefore, whatever be the terminology used by the Magistrate, it must be deemed to be an acquittal under S. 256 , Crl P.C, and not a discharge. Therefore, the inexactitude in the terminology used by the lower court is immaterial and it is clear that it was nothing short of an acquittal in a summons case.

Now, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to restore the complaint on filed which has already been validly disposed of. S. 382, Crl. P.C. is a bar for such restoration or revival. It was perhaps open to the respondent to file a fresh complaint and there is no provision for reveal of the complaint already disposed of in accordance with law. On this ground also, the revival of the complaint has to, be set aside.

One other point deserves mention. The offence complained of is one of defamation under S. 500 of the I. P.C. and the accused is the father of a missing boy, who is said to a gold medalist and a student of the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology. The boy is still not traced. In this background, there was a news report published in Dinamani (2nd accused) which cast some reflection on the respondent-complainant with reference to the missing boy. Therefore, the circumstances in which the alleged defamation (if at all it is one) had taken place should also be taken into consideration and it is submitted that the complaint itself is nothing but harassment. There is force in the submission of the petitioner herein. For all those reasons, the prosecution in C.C. No. 2891 of 1982 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate is quashed and the order reviving the complaint is set aside. The petition is allowed.