Crl. Misc. No. M-16753 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-16753 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: September 22 ,2009 Hoshiar Singh .. Petitioner v. Jagjit Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. S. Bhinder, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.4.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby on account of non-appearance of counsel for the petitioner-complainant, the complaint filed by the petitioners was dismissed for want of prosecution and the accused were discharged. The order of discharge is sought to be challenged in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed was on account of the fact that wrong date was noted by both the parties as 17.4.2008, whereas the case was fixed for 15.4.2008 and was dismissed in default on account of non-appearance of counsel for the parties. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in Jitender Bajaj v. State (U.T. Chandigarh) and others, 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 69, the submission is that this Court can exercise its extra ordinary power and set aside the order dismissing the complaint in default and restore the same to its original number. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after the respondents-accused had been discharged, there was no question of challenge to the order by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The dismissal of complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused and against the order of acquittal, the petitioner could either file leave to appeal or revision. Reliance was placed upon State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 134 (P&H) and H.P. Financial Corporation v. M/s Continental Spinners Ltd. and others, 2003 Crl. Misc. No. M-16753 of 2008 [2] (3) RCR (Criminal) 743 (HP). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The complaint in the present case was filed by the petitioner under Sections 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC on 9.11.2005. The same was dismissed in default on 15.4.2008. Thereafter, the proceedings are pending before this Court. A perusal of sections, under which the complaint has been filed, shows that the maximum punishment provided therein is upto two years of imprisonment. As the proceedings in the present case are pending for the last about 4 years and all the offences are non-cognizable and bailable, without going into the controversy raised by the parties regarding maintainability of the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction in the present case to restore the complaint, which was dismissed in default. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 22,2009 mk