JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Mawali dated 10-6-83 dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Fatehlal herein petitioner was president of Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh (Shekhawat Group) (hereinafter referred to as the (Sangh) sub-branch, Mawli. The non-petitioner Shyam Sunder was Secretary of the Sangh. In the year 1978, due to inactiveness, the non-petitioner was removed from secretaryship. The petitioner became Convener of the Sangh. Thereafter, the non-petitioner called a meeting and a no confidence motion was got passed against the petitioner without any notice to him. This news regarding removal of the petitioner from the post of President was got published by the non-petitioner on,3-6-82 in daily newspaper. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed a complaint under section 500 IPC, before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Mawli.The learned Magistrate after holding enquiry, examined the complainant under section 200 Cr. PC and the other witnesses under section 202 Cr. PC and issued process against the non-petitioner. The application was rejected on 15-5-83, and process was issued for appearance on 10-6-83. On 10-6-83 both; the complainant-petitioner and the accused did not appear and the learned Magistrate, dismissed the complaint. The complainant moved an application for restoration of the complaint but the same was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Mr. G.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in law is not restoring the case and submitted that the learned Magistrate has no power to dismiss the complaint. He has further submitted that a direction may be issued for retrial of the case. He has relied on the decisions reported in 1959 RLW 100 (C.R. Alwares v. Habool & Anr. ) and AIR 1965 Raj. 19 (Joharilal v. Ramjilal ). 4. Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner has submitted that the Magistrate has no power to restore the complaint when once it is dismissed, and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfect. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The question for consideration in this revision is as to whether the Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint due to non appearance of the complaint, and if so, whether he has power to restore it back. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The question for consideration in this revision is as to whether the Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint due to non appearance of the complaint, and if so, whether he has power to restore it back. For resolving the controversy raised in this revision, it would be proper to read Section 256, which reads as under : Section 256 Cr. PC Non-appearance or death of Complainant : "(1) If the summons has been issued on complainant, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, not withstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance any proceed with the case." 6. It is clear from the perusal of Section 256 that on complainant, if summons has been issued to the accused to appear and on the appointed day the complainant remains absent, the Magistrate has power to acquit the accused or for some reasons adjourn the hearing provided that the complainant is represented by a pleader or by any officer and in the opinion of the Magistrate the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary and he may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. Thus, there remains no doubt that Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint in case the complainant remains absent but this power must be exercised judiciously. As regards the restoration of complaint is concerned to my mind it appears that the Magistrate has no power to restore it back. The same view has been expressed by their lordships in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr. v. S.N. Thakur and Anr. As regards the restoration of complaint is concerned to my mind it appears that the Magistrate has no power to restore it back. The same view has been expressed by their lordships in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr. v. S.N. Thakur and Anr. ( AIR 1986 SC 1440 ) wherein their lordships has held that there is nothing in the Code that a Magistrate holds power to restore such matters of default, unlike powers envisaged under section 151 CPC, Therefore, once an order is passed dismissing the complaint for non-appearance of the complaint, the Magistrate has become functus-officio and have no power to restore, review or recall his order under any circumstances. 7. In C.R. Alwares v. Habool (supra), the complainant's evidence was complete. The complainant who belonged to Christian Community remained absent due to 'X-mas' holiday & did not reach the Court on that day but his counsel was present. The complaint was dismissed. On appeal the case was remanded for retrial to the Magistrate as the day having been declared on account of it being 'Good Friday. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case in hand on the appointed neither the complainant nor his pleader was present. 8. In view of the above discussion and the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Maj. Gen. A S. Gauraya's case (supra), the Magistrate has power to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant and acquit the accused. No power has been vested in the learned Magistrate to restore the case. Undoubtedly, the High Court in exercise of its re visional powers can revise such an order and may direct for retrial of the accused in cases of grave miscarriage of justice but in 1 the present case a bare perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial court reveal that the complaint is pending since 17-9-82, the case was at initial stage and not at final stage. The complainant also remained absent on 10-12-82 and 18-5-83. On 10-6-83, neither the complainant nor his advocate was present. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Magistrate has exercised his discretion arbitrarily or capriciously in dismissing the complaint due to non-appearance of the complainant. The complainant also remained absent on 10-12-82 and 18-5-83. On 10-6-83, neither the complainant nor his advocate was present. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Magistrate has exercised his discretion arbitrarily or capriciously in dismissing the complaint due to non-appearance of the complainant. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, the Magistrate has rightly exercised his discretion, therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference. 9. In the result, this revision petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******