JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu dated 12.10.1983 whereby he has rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 7.5.1982 before the police against five persons under Sections 147, 148 & 451 Indian Penal Code. The Final Report bearing No. 24/82 of Police Station Ladnu in the case was filed before the Magistrate concerned on 27.9.1982, and which was accepted by the learned Magistrate on 9.3.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a protest petition but the same was dismissed. The proceedings under Section 182 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against the Petitioner. A private complaint was also filed by the petitioner against the accused persons under the aforementioned Sections before the 'concerned Magistrate on 6.4.1983. But, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 12.10.1983 rejected the same on the ground that neither the complainant is present nor his witnesses are present, and the F.R. related to this incident has already been accepted on 9.3.1982. Hence this revision petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Mr. D.R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner also moved S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 112/84 Sukh Deo v. State against the order dated 30.1.1984 , whereby his second private complaint against the same incident was rejected. 5. This Court vide order dated 28.3.1984 dismissed the revision No. 112/84 on the ground : "When the first complaint has been dismissed after hearing under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code, the second complaint is incompetent. The impugned order dated 30th January, 1984, thus, calls for no interference. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily." 6. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Court-below which may call for any interference. 7. Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that since the incident is of 7.5.1982 and due to F.R. a complaint for proceedings under Section 182 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the petitioner and almost ten years have been passed, therefore, the proceedings under Section 182 Criminal Procedure Code maybe quashed. But, no relief can be granted in this revision. But, no relief can be granted in this revision. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points before the Trial Court and the Trial Court will decide according to law.In the result, the revision is dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******