MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482, Cri. P. C. by the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings in C. Misc. No. 63 of 1986 on the file of the II Additional C. M. M. , Bangalore. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) PETITION is admitted. ( 4 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents I have heard this case on merits today. ( 5 ) THE respondent filed a petition under section 33 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and prayed for an order restraining the petitioner industry from polluting the Vrushabhavati Valley, and punish the petitioner according to law. ( 6 ) I have perused the order sheet of the case. On 19-9-1987 the petitioner was absent and the petition came to be dismissed. On 21-11-1987 the learned Magistrate allowed the application for restoring the dismissal of the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when once the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of complainant there was no power in the Magistrate to restore the same. In AIR 1986 SC 1440 - Maj. Genl. AS. Gauraya and another v S. N. Thakur and Another, the Supreme court has held as follows:"so far as the accused is concerned, dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant or his discharge or acquittal on the same ground is a final order and in the absence of any specific provisions in the code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction to restore the case. A second complaint is permissible in law if it could be brought within the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court in Pramatha nath Taluqdar v Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 . Filing of a second complaint is not the same thing as reviving a dismissed complaint after recalling the earlier order of dismissal. The Criminal P. C. does not contain any provision enabling the criminal court to exercise such an inherent power. Filing of a second complaint is not the same thing as reviving a dismissed complaint after recalling the earlier order of dismissal. The Criminal P. C. does not contain any provision enabling the criminal court to exercise such an inherent power. Also, what the Court has to see is not whether the Code contains any provision prohibiting a Magistrate from entertaining an application to restore a dismissed complaint, but the task should be find out whether the said Code contains any provision enabling a Magistrate to exercise an inherent jurisdiction which he otherwise does not have. " ( 7 ) THOUGH the petition filed by the petitioner was under Section 33 of the said Act, there was a prayer by him to punish the second petitioner according to law. Therefore that petition was a complaint and on the dismissal of the said complaint by the learned Magistrate he had no inherent jurisdiction or power to restore the same. Hence, this petition is required to be allowed. ( 8 ) I make the following: order Petition is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 21-11-1987 is set aside. --- *** --- .