B. L. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (For short the Code) is directed against the order dated 23. 6. 81 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 96 of 1981, Kripa Shankar Mishra v. Awadh Narain and others under Sections 323/504/506/448 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) IT appears that a complaint was filed under Sections 323/504/506/447 I. P. C. by the opposite party against the applicants on 24/6/1980 and that complaint was dismissed on the same day i. e. on 24/6/1980 in absence of the complainant. The complainant filed another complaint stating these facts and statements under Section 202 of the Code were recorded. The process was also ordered to be issued under Section 203 of the Code. On 19-2-81 the complainant along with accused was present and that was the date fixed for adducing evidence on behalf of the complainant but the counsel for the complainant did not appear and the complainant did not make any application for adjournment. The Magistrate closed the evidence as the complainant did not adduce any evidence and passed an order of discharge under Section 245 (2) of the Code. Again a 3rd complaint was filed on 19-2-81 stating all the facts including dismissal of the complaint and purported order of discharge under section 245 (2) of the Code. An objection appears to have been raised on behalf of the opposite parties (present applicants) that the 3rd complaint was not maintainable, but that objection was ruled out by the impugned order against which present revision is directed. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants urged that on the same cause of action or on the same facts, 3rd complaint was not maintainable as after dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 or purported order of discharge under Section 245 (2) there was no fresh fact nor was any special circumstance. Reliance was placed on Murlidhar Kunar v. Bhagaban Kunar, Ram Kissen Shaw and another v. Smt. Chandrawati Shaw and another, and Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Sri Harihar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that there was no bar in entertaining second or third complaint. Reliance was placed on Murlidhar Kunar v. Bhagaban Kunar, Ram Kissen Shaw and another v. Smt. Chandrawati Shaw and another, and Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and Sri Harihar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the State on the other hand urged that there was no bar in entertaining second or third complaint. In case the accused had already been discharged or even if the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code and the order for issuing process was not passed as there was no sufficient ground to proceed in that event also fresh complaint can be filed, under special or exceptional circumstances. The reliance was placed on Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, point for determination is as to whether 3rd fresh complaint on the same facts but under special circumstances could be entertained? No doubt if an accused has been acquitted he cannot be prosecuted or convicted again for the same offence but where a criminal complaint has been dismissed either under section 203 or any purported order of discharge under Section 245 (2) has been passed, there is no specific bar under the Code for entertaining a second or third complaint on the same facts under special circumstances. In the instant case the allegations as regards the offence under Sections 323/504/506/447 I. P. C. were the same but first complaint appears to have been dismissed the same day when it was filed, in the absence of the complainant. This also appears to be an unique circumstance. Similarly when the second complaint was filed, process was issued under Section 203 after considering the statement recorded under Section 202 but on 19-2-81 the complainant was present but his counsel was not present and the complainant did not make any application for adjournment. That appears to be under the impression that his counsel might have turned up. An order of discharge under Section 245 (2) of the Code was passed discharging the applicants but that appears to be an erroneous order in as much as Section 245 occurs under Chapter XIX which deals with trial of warrant cases by Magistrates in cases instituted on a police report and the case instituted otherwise than on police report. An order of discharge under Section 245 (2) of the Code was passed discharging the applicants but that appears to be an erroneous order in as much as Section 245 occurs under Chapter XIX which deals with trial of warrant cases by Magistrates in cases instituted on a police report and the case instituted otherwise than on police report. In the instant case the offence involved was not in a case of warrant hence provisions of Section 245 of the Code were not applicable and the 3rd complaint pointing out special circumstances as enumerated above was filed. Under the circumstances of the case there was no bar under the Code in entertaining fresh complaint (third) under special circumstances and the purported order of discharge was not an order of acquittal. ( 5 ) IN Murlidhar Kunar v. Bhagaban Kunar, (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant it was held that fresh complaint on the same facts under special circumstances could be entertained. In view of the facts of the present case this case is of no assistance to the applicants. Similarly Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State (Supra) was also of no assistance to the applicants in as much as in that case a number of authorities including Pramathanath Talukdar v. Saroj Ramjan Sarkar were considered and it was held that even after dismissal of complaint on the ground that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, there was no bar in entertaining second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. ( 6 ) IN Ram Kissen Shaw and another v. Smt. Chandravati Shaw and another (Supra) it was held that dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 is no bar for entertaining second complaint but there must be some cogent and compelling reason for the second complaint. This case was rather against the applicants. ( 7 ) IN Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh (Supra) relied upon by the opposite parties it was pointed out by Their Lordships of Supreme Court that a second complaint can lie only on new facts or it can lie even on same facts if special circumstance is made out. I am of the view that the present case stands on better footings. I am of the view that the present case stands on better footings. In the instant case the first complaint was dismissed the same day it was filed on account of absence of the complainant. It was a fact that even statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 were recorded. The second complaint was filed and process was issued after considering the statements of witnesses that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. 19-2-81 was the date fixed for evidence by complainant, his counsel did not appear. The complainant failed to make any application for adjournment. He appears to be under the impression that his counsel would appear but the complaint was dismissed under Section 245 (2) purporting to be an order of discharge in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on notice report. The offence in the present case is indicative that it was not a warrant case. ( 8 ) WARRANT case has been defined under Section 2 (Two) (x) of the Code and it means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. Summons case has been defined under Section 2 (Two (w) of the Code which means a case relating to an offence not being a warrant case. In brief the warrant case means a case relating to an offence punishable with minimum imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years. In the instant case, offence under Section 323, was punishable with imprisonment for 1 year. Offence under Sections 504/506 was punishable with imprisonment for 2 years and offence under Section 447 was punishable with imprisonment for a period of 3 months only, therefore, the offences could not be said to covered by the definition of warrant case and provisions of Section 245 (2) under which the order of discharge was passed, was not applicable hence, that order was manifestly erroneous and the 3rd complaint under these circumstances would constitute certainly special circumstances of the present case. Some special circumstances may be enumerated as follows: 1. Where the earlier complaint was dismissed on the basis of incomplete record or misunderstanding the nature of the complaint. 2. Manifest error. 3. Miscarriage of justice. ( 9 ) ADDUCING of new facts, which the complainant could not discover despite due diligence. Some special circumstances may be enumerated as follows: 1. Where the earlier complaint was dismissed on the basis of incomplete record or misunderstanding the nature of the complaint. 2. Manifest error. 3. Miscarriage of justice. ( 9 ) ADDUCING of new facts, which the complainant could not discover despite due diligence. ( 10 ) IN the instant case I am of the view that the purported order of discharge or dismissal of complaint under Section 245 (2) of the Code was passed without understanding the nature of the complaint and it was a case covered by manifest error and miscarriage of justice. Under these circumstances the complainant could not be blamed and there was no bar in entertaining a denovo complaint, may be third one. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the applicant that the third complaint cannot be entertained. But under law there is no such bar for entertaining third complaint if some special circumstances are there or it is filed on new facts. I need not emphasize that the principles of law do not work like mathematical or scientific formulas nor the same precision or accuracy can be expected. In other words the law cannot be expected to be technically correct. It must often content itself with being practical. ( 11 ) I do not find any mistake in the impugned order. In the result present revision fails and is dismissed. As the matter has dragged on for too long, what is required is expedition. Office is directed to send back the record to lower court immediately. .