TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess and cavalior manner in which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appears to have dealt with the complaint filed before him as far back as 21 st February, 1966. The complaint itself contains allegations of a very petty nature, of which hardly any cognizance could have been taken and which would be a trivial act under Sec. 95 of Indian Penal Code for which no criminal proceedings could be taken. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than two years. Ultimately, on the 23 rd November, 1968 the complaint was dis- missed under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the complainant was absent and did not show any interest in the inquiry ordered by the Court. On the 7 th of December, 1968 the respondent appeared before the Magistrate and filed an application for recalling his order. The Magistrate passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the complaint or to control the proceedings before him. In support of the appeal Mr, Nag has submitted a short point. He has contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall the order dated 23-11-1968, by which he had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, there was no express order recalling the order dismissing the complaint, but b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich, however, confers these powers on the High Court and the High Court alone. Unlike Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, the subordinate criminal courts have no inherent powers. In these circumstances, therefore, the learned Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction to recall the order dismissing the complaint. The remedy of the respondent was to move the Sessions Judge or the High Court in rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calling the order of dismissal of the complaint would amount to a fresh complaint. We are, however, unable to agree with this contention because there was no fresh complaint and it is now well settled that a second complaint can lie only on fresh facts or even on the previous facts only if a special case is made out. This has been held by this Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
