O. P. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for leave to appeal in a case of acquittal under Sections 468, 469 and 471 IPC. Applicant Ram Surat Duvedi is a Lecturer in an Educational Institution and accused Ram Kumar Trivedi is the Principal of the institution. The first complaint was filed by Ram Surat Duvedi in 1978 alleging that the Principal, Ram Kumar Trivedi, has fabricated a resignation letter purporting to be signed by Ram Surat Duvedi. It was alleged by the complainant that the resignation letter is a forged one and therefore the Principal should be punished for forgery. ( 2 ) THE first complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P. C. on 16-1-1979 with the observation that the complaints counsel pleaded no instructions and the complainant himself is absent. As there was no evidence under Section 202 Cr. P. C. the Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr. P. C. on 9-4-1979 the complainant filed the second complaint and his statement was recorded under S. 200 Cr. P. C. After examining two witnesses under S. 202 Cr. P. C. the case was registered and the accused was summoned. The complainant examined all his witnesses who were duly cross-examined by the accused. The statement of the accused was recorded and he also led evidence in defence. On 18-8-1981 when two defence witnesses had already been examined, the accused filed an application in which he raised the objection for the first time that the first complaint having been dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P. C the second complaint is barred because it is not covered by any of the exceptions given in AIR 1962 SC 876 . 0n 7-9-1981 the Court ordered that the application dated 18-8-1981 will be considered at the time of final arguments because by that time the defence evidence was also over. The accused took time to file a revision. After taking some adjournments the accused filed an application under Section 482. Cr. P. C. before this Court which was application No. 5495 of 1981 Ram Kumar Trivedi v. Ram Surat. In this application filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the accused obtained a stay order from this Court and the further progress of the complaint filed by Ram Surat Duvedi was held up. ( 3 ) THE application filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr. In this application filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the accused obtained a stay order from this Court and the further progress of the complaint filed by Ram Surat Duvedi was held up. ( 3 ) THE application filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was decided by this Court on 15-11-1985 and the Court passed the following order :"learned counsel for both the parties have admitted before me that in pursuance of the second complaint in criminal case No. 1051 of 1980, the parties have led their evidence and the case, before filing of this application, was fixed for arguments. If that be so, in my opinion it is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case an offence has been made out against the applicant will be the question which will be gone into by the Court below and in that connection the Court below will definitely examine the question as to whether in the true sense the dispute between the parties is of purely civil nature or not. The learned counsel for the applicant has also urged that the applicant would like to take ground regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The Court below will decide all the points which are raised by the parties after hearing them. " ( 4 ) WITH the decision of the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. the stay order was also vacated. When the matter was again taken up by the lower Court the accused filed another application on 2-12-1986 in which he reiterated the same objection that the second complaint is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate upheld this objection by the impugned order dated 3-3-1987 and passed an order on acquittal holding that the second complaint is not maintainable. Under these circumstances the present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the accused and learned A. G. A. for the State and have gone through the record. Under these circumstances the present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the accused and learned A. G. A. for the State and have gone through the record. ( 6 ) IT may be stated at the out set that it is true that in the second complaint filed on 9-4-1979 there is no reference of the first complaint which was dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P. C. on 16-1-1979. Ordinarily the complainant must disclose this fact that the first application was dismissed and he should assign reasons for filing the second complaint. However, in this case the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate on 3-3-1987 is against the directions issued by this Court on 15-11-1985 while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed on behalf of the accused. ( 7 ) BEFORE proceeding further some rulings cited on behalf of the accused-respondent may be mentioned. In AIR 1986 SC 1440 Maj. Genl. A. S. Gauraya v. S. N. Thakur it has been held that a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction to restore a case dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant. This ruling has no application to the facts of the present case because the learned Magistrate had not revived the first complaint and he had simply entertained a second complaint on the same facts. The next case is Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 , in which it has been held that a second complaint on the same facts can be entertained where new evidence is disclosed. On facts and in the circumstances of the case it was held that the bringing of the first complaint was a gross abuse of the process of the Court and was not with the object of furthering the interest of justice. The next case cited on behalf of the accused is Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432 , in which it has been observed that a second complaint can lie only on new facts or even on previous facts if a special case is made out. The next case cited on behalf of the accused is Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432 , in which it has been observed that a second complaint can lie only on new facts or even on previous facts if a special case is made out. ( 8 ) ON the basis of the above authorities it has been argued on behalf of the accused that no special case was made out and the Court below has rightly held that the second complaint is not maintainable. ( 9 ) AFTER giving the matter careful consideration this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court was wrong in entertaining the same objection which was raised on behalf of the accused on 18-8-1981 and which the learned Magistrate postponed till the final decision of the case. It has already been stated above that the second complaint was filed on 9-4-79. The accused appeared and continued to participate in the proceedings. The whole of the prosecution evidence was recorded in his presence and he also led defence evidence. It was at the fagend of the trial that he raised the objection about the maintainability by his application dated 18-8-1981. When the learned Magistrate postponed the decision of the application the accused filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. In this Court he did not confine himself to the maintainability of the second complaint on the ground of dismissal of the first complaint under Section 203 Cr. P. C. He raised a number of objection in his application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. A perusal of judgment of this Court dated 15-11-85 shows that the main objection taken by the accused was that a writ petition and a civil suit has also been filed in which this question is to be adjudicated as to whether the resignation tendered by the opposite party is a genuine document. It was also urged in the earlier proceedings that criminal case is in fact of a civil nature and is liable to be quashed on that ground. A perusal of the judgment dated 15-11-85 shows that when this Court was informed that the parties have led their evidence and the case, before filing of the application under Section 482 Cr. It was also urged in the earlier proceedings that criminal case is in fact of a civil nature and is liable to be quashed on that ground. A perusal of the judgment dated 15-11-85 shows that when this Court was informed that the parties have led their evidence and the case, before filing of the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was fixed for arguments, it was held that it is not a tit case for quashing the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. This Court further observed that the Court below will definitely examine the question as to whether in the true sense the dispute between the parties is of purely civil nature or not. 1n the portion of the judgment which has been quoted above this Court no doubt said that the Court below will decide all the points which are raised by the parties after hearing them. That, however, does not mean that this Court permitted the learned Magistrate to examine the maintainability of the second complaint in isolation. The judgment very clearly expresses the reluctance of the Court to examine this question in a piecemeal manner and it is for this reason that it was said that the Court below will decide all the points which are raised by the parties. The intention of this Court clearly was that all the points should be decided together because the case was ripe for final arguments. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate committed an impropriety in disregarding the direction issued by this Court and dismissing the complaint on the question of maintainability. The impugned judgment cannot therefore be allowed to stand and it is a fit case in which the acquittal should be set aside and the case should be sent back to the lower Court to decide the case afresh dealing with all the points arising in the case. The impugned judgment cannot therefore be allowed to stand and it is a fit case in which the acquittal should be set aside and the case should be sent back to the lower Court to decide the case afresh dealing with all the points arising in the case. ( 10 ) IT is true that in AIR 1962 SC 876 , Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar the Apex Court has said in para 48 as under :"an order of dismissal under S. 203, Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e. g. , where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. "but the circumstances enumerated above are not exhaustive. They are only illustrative. The Explanation to Section 300 Cr. P. C. clearly says that the dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this Section. Therefore there is no legal impediment in taking cognizance of the second complaint. Honble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines so that an unscrupulous complaint may not be in a position to harass an accused by filing successive complaints. If the Court is satisfied that there is no lack of bona fide, there is no legal bar in taking cognizance on a second complaint. In the instant case the conduct of the parties is noteworthy. The accused kept silent for a long time and raised this plea in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in a half-hearted manner. Under these circumstances the mere fact that no reason was given for the absence of the complainant on 16-1-1979 will not bar the second complaint. ( 11 ) LASTLY, the learned counsel for the accused has cited, AIR 1986 SC 289 S. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd. in which it has been held that where the appeal against the acquittal remained pending before the High Court for six years, retrial should not have been ordered even though acquittal was improper. ( 11 ) LASTLY, the learned counsel for the accused has cited, AIR 1986 SC 289 S. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd. in which it has been held that where the appeal against the acquittal remained pending before the High Court for six years, retrial should not have been ordered even though acquittal was improper. This Court has given careful consideration to this aspect of the matter. While making the above observations the Apex Court took into consideration not only the delay but also the nature and magnitude of the offence and also the fact that it may be difficult to secure the presence of witnesses in a case of this nature nearly seven years after the incident. ( 12 ) IN the cited case the offence was under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code which is a minor offence as compared to the offence under Sections 471, 468 and 469, IPC which are involved in the case in hand. Moreover, in the instant case there is no question of any difficulty in securing the presence of witnesses because all the witnesses of both the sides have already been examined. ( 13 ) IN view of the above discussion, the appeal against acquittal is allowed and the judgment passed by IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur on 3-3-1987 acquitting the accused of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469 and 471 , IPC is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20-5-1996 and the Court below is directed to dispose of the case on merits within three months. The office is directed to send the record, with a copy of this judgment, to IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur within a week. Appeal allowed. .