1 cri.appln.2320.2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2320 OF 2010 IN CASE NO. 7 OF 2010 Shri. Vasant Laxuman Gurav and anr. ... Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Prashant Sawant, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for respondent no. 2. Mr. P.H.. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2011 P.C. This application seeks to challenge the order dated 28th January, 2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Deorukh Ratnagiri taking cognizance of the complaint under section 504, 506(ii) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against the applicants. Respondent no. 2 is the original complainant. It is contended on behalf of the 2 cri.appln.2320.2010 applicants that the impugned order cannot be sustained since it has been passed on the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 after his first complaint was dismissed and the applicants were discharged. Perusal of the order and the first complaint being R.C.C. No. 28 of 2008 shows that the complaint came to be dismissed because the complainant had remained absent since 12th August, 2009 and the matter could not proceed in the absence of the complainant. The accused persons particularly applicant no. 2 herein being aged person, the court was not inclined to maintain the proceedings on file any further. Thereafter respondent no. 2 filed the second complaint. While passing order of issuance of process on the the second complaint, the court took a note of section 202, 203 and 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also the decision of Apex Court in Jatinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Ranjit Kaur, reported in 2001(1) Crimes 218 (SC) holding that if the dismissal of the complaint was not on merit but on default, there is no bar in complainant moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint on same facts. 3 cri.appln.2320.2010 The learned counsel for the applicant seeks to argue that since the applicants herein were discharged by order dated 15th January, 2010 passed in R.C.C. No. 28 of 2008, it cannot be said that the complaint was dismissed for default. I do not find any merit in the contention. Hence, application is dismissed. [Judge]