Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2008 (O&M) Dated of decision : 16.11.2009 Amarjit Singh ..... Petitioner vs Baldev Singh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A. P. Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present revision is to the order passed by the learned court below whereby the application of the accused-respondent for dismissal of the complaint was accepted. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the pendency of the complaint, the respondent filed an application dated 30.5.2007 for dismissal of the complaint with the plea that the earlier complaint filed by the complainant regarding the same incident as mentioned in para 8 of the complaint was dismissed along with the application filed for correction of the name of the accused from Kirpal Singh to Baldev Singh vide order dated 3.9.2002 and the instant complaint being second is not maintainable and the second complaint to the same facts is only maintainable with the permission of the court and not otherwise. In the reply filed to the application, the petitioner admitted the dismissal of application for correction of name of the accused as well as the dismissal of complaint. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the court below has rightly dismissed the complaint as the complainant did not obtain permission of the court for filing the same afresh after the dismissal of the previous complaint on the same set of facts. Admittedly, the petitioner had earlier filed complaint titled as Amarjit Singh vs Kirpal Singh. The same was dismissed on 3.9.2002 alongwith the application for correction of name of the accused from Kirpal Singh to Baldev Singh. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did not obtain required permission Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2008 -2- of the court to file fresh complaint on the same set of facts. In such circumstances when fresh complaint was not maintainable, the court below has no other option but to dismiss the same being not maintainable. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. 16.11.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge