1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint.
2. The opposite party filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they had trespassed upon his land, reaped paddy and wrongfully carried it away. The case for the opposite party was that his wife had obtained a decree from Court respecting this land and had obtained khas possession under an order of the Court, Presumably, the defence was that the present petitioners were in possession throughout.
3. The opposite party filed a complaint and eventually the case was dismissed as the opposite party failed to appear. A revival petition was put in which was treated as a fresh complaint and in due course this also was dismissed for failure of the opposite party to appean. On the day following another revival petition was put in and another Magistrate took cognizance and examined the opposite party under Section 200, Criminal P.C.
4. In the last reyival petition, the opposite party attempted to explain his non-appearance by stating that he had gone away to say his prayers. But it seems that not only was the opposite party not present but his witnesses were absent as well. Their absence is not explained in any way. It seems to me that the explanation given by the opposite party was entirely false.
5. The offence complained might well be of a civil nature. But in any event are the present petitioners to be harassed for ever in this manner? If the complainant files a complaint it is his duty to prosecute it. By a piece of bad luck he may fail to turn up on one occasion and he may ask a Court to hear a fresh complaint; but when he fails to turn up on a second occasion and the petitioners are discharged, it appears to me that a Court should be very reluctant to entertain a third complaint particularly when the explanation given by the complainant is obviously false. It seems to me in this case that the complainant is harassing these petitioners. It is to be observed that when the petitioners were discharged on the second occasion the Magistrate did express his opinion that there was nothing in the complaint. If this order of the learned Magistrate is to stand, it appears to me that the complainant may fail to turn up again and upon the petitioners being discharged restart the whole proceedings. There must be a limit to this sort of thing and that limit, I think was reached when the petitioners were 'discharged for the second time. The learned Magistrate should not have entertained a fresh complaint in the circumstances, and that being so, I allow this petition, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and quash the proceedings. The rule is accordingly made absolute.