Atma Charan, J.C.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the order of 'discharge' passed by the trial Cour~ be set aside and that the record be remitted to the trial Court for proceeding with the case afresh and in accordance with law.
3. The facts of the case have been summa. rized correctly in its order by the Court below, and need not be reiterated. The order of 'discharge', in fact, amounts to an order of 'acquittal' since a charge stood framed against the accused (opposite. party). It is now 80 well. settled law that the High Courb will not ordinarily interfere with an order of acquittal in revision unless interference is urgently called for in the interests of public justiae. Even in such cases the High Court should be slow to interfere because it is always open to an aggrieved complainant to move the authorities for an appeal against an order of acquittal by the Government. The complaint in the present case is in respect of an offence punishable Under Section 600, Penal Code. The offence is said to be dated 21st February 1946. The litiga.tion went on luxuriousiy between the parties before the trial Court for well over four years. The accused were 'acquitted' for the com. plainant (applicant) had proceeded to and had continued to stay on in Pakistan. If the com. plainan t wanted to continue the proceedings he should not have thought of proceeding to and so staying on in Pakistan. The matter in dispute between the parties, no doubt, is a very triviaJ one and interference in no way, appear to be called for . The complainant after all could not be allowed to worry the accused indifinitely.
4. The reference according is rejected.