JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The complainant is the Petitioner. She is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4-1-1972 by which a learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons. 2. She complained to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cuttack that at about 5 in the afternoon on 3-2-1969 six accused persons assaulted her, trespassed into her house, outraged her modesty and committed theft of goods as indicated in the petition of complaint. The complainant was examined by the learned Magistrate on 6-2-1969 and cognizance was taken only against the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against u/s 448, 324, Indian Penal Code, while the other opposite party was proceeded against u/s 448, 323, Indian Penal Code. It took a long time to apprehend the accused persons because they were not served with summons issued from the Court at the first instance. By end of December, 1969 the case was ready for evidence, but one of the accused persons kept away from the Court. On 7-2-1970, the complainant was absent while the accused persons were present. The learned Magistrate ultimately posted the case to 11-3-1970 when the complainant appeared but the accused persons absented themselves. On 31-3-1970, the complainant was absent and the accused persons had not appeared. Therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued. On 28-4-1970 one of the accused persons was produced before the learned Magistrate in custody and he was granted bail. The other accused continued to be absent. Next followed a series of dates when the complainant was present but one or the other or even both of the accused persons remained absent. The case dragged on in such a manner for about a year. In the meantime it got transferred to another Court. The new Magistrate started pursuing the accused persons. On 28-10-1971, the complainant was absent; so were the accused. A petition was filed before the learned Magistrate to exempt her attendance. On 4-12-1971 the complainant was absent and one of the accused also was absent. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 4-1-1971 (obviously 4-1-1972) requiring the complainant to furnish the present address of the non-appearing accused. On 4-1-1972, one accused was present, the other accused was absent and the complainant was also absent. On 4-12-1971 the complainant was absent and one of the accused also was absent. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 4-1-1971 (obviously 4-1-1972) requiring the complainant to furnish the present address of the non-appearing accused. On 4-1-1972, one accused was present, the other accused was absent and the complainant was also absent. As no steps had been taken by the complainant to provide the Court with the present address of the non-appearing accused the learned Magistrate passed the following order: The case is lingering since the complainant is not taking any interest in the case. Hence I take the charges to be groundless and the accused are discharged u/s 253(2), Code of Criminal Procedure of offences under Sections 323, 324 and 448, Indian Penal Code. On 19-1-1972, the learned Magistrate was moved again, but he declined to interfere with the order of discharge passed by him earlier This revision application assails the order dated 4-1-1972 as also the subsequent order dated 19-1-72 by which the earlier order was not recalled. 3. This case illustrates lack of care and control by the learned Magistrate over his own proceeding: The learned Magistrate has not disbelieved the case of the complainant who is a lady that she had been suffering from (sic) disorder and was an indoor patient for some time. I find on 4-12-1971 the learned Magistrate became disgusted with the situation and had even directed that the case may be split up so that against the non appearing accused the proceeding may be deferred. In these circumstances, on 4-1-1972 if the complainant had appeared the case could not have been proceeded with. I am not in a position to say that the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing the order as was done on 4-1-1972. But when cause was shown and the learned Magistrate has not examined the position as to whether Petitioner?s ground for keeping absent from Court was genuine or not, it was not proper on his part not to recall his earlier order. 4. The complainant came with utmost expedition before the Court. Though cognizance was taken only of some offences, it had been alleged that more serious offences had been committed. It is not known whether given an opportunity the prosecution would be able to show prima facie case for the other offences. 4. The complainant came with utmost expedition before the Court. Though cognizance was taken only of some offences, it had been alleged that more serious offences had been committed. It is not known whether given an opportunity the prosecution would be able to show prima facie case for the other offences. But as matters stand I am satisfied that it is a fit case where the proceeding should be continued. 5. The Petitioner had her remedy open u/s 436. Code of Criminal Procedure. Full relief in this matter could have been obtained from either the learned Sessions Judge or the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). There was no justification for the revision to be filed in this Court. As objection had not been taken when the revision was filed and placed for admission at this belated stage I am not prepared to hold that this proceeding should be thrown out. After all it is not a Court of no jurisdiction. I would accordingly allow the revision petition set aside the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 4-1-1972 and call upon the learned Magistrate to proceed with utmost expedition to deal with the case in accordance with law. He must remain alive to the fact that the prosecution was launched almost three years back and the Court is responsible for the most part of the delay. The records be returned immediately.