The Calcutta High Court hasn’t exactly ruled that once a complaint is dismissed for default, it amounts to acquittal with no restoration permissible. Magistrate has no power to review his own order of dismissal remedy lies only in appeal Calcutta High Court held that a complaint dismissed for default under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to a legal acquittal, and no provision under law permits its restoration. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das dismissed the petitioner’s revisional application seeking revival of her complaint, clarifying that the Magistrate, having once dismissed the case, becomes functus officio and cannot re-enter into the merits or procedural restoration of the case.
Key Point:
Dismissal of Complaint: When a complaint is dismissed due to the complainant’s non-appearance, it can lead to the accused’s acquittal.
No Restoration: In such cases, restoration of the complaint is generally not permitted, as the Magistrate lacks inherent jurisdiction to review or recall the acquittal order.
Exception: The only recourse for the complainant is to approach the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, which allows for restoration of the complaint in exceptional circumstances.
Relevant Case Laws:
Ghulam Rasool Mughal vs Gh. Ahmad Hajam: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that dismissal of a complaint due to non-appearance of the complainant results in acquittal, and restoration proceedings are barred.
Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & another vs S.N. Thakur & another: The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate cannot exercise inherent jurisdiction to restore a complaint dismissed in default.
Mohd. Azeem case: The Supreme Court ruled that a Magistrate lacks the power to restore or revive a dismissed complaint, leaving the complainant to seek remedy through the High Court.
In conclusion, the court’s decision emphasizes the importance of understanding the implications of dismissing a complaint for default and the limited options available for restoration.
