Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Counsel, for opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. 2. This revision applciation is directed against the order dated 5.4.1991 passed in Criminal Revision 173/91 by the learned Sessions Jduge, Sitamarhi dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wholly erred in holding that the second complaint filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the order impugned is without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case where the protest petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-appearance on 12.4.90, the second complaint filed on 19.4.90 was maintainable. 4. It appears that the petitioner has lodged first information report on 10.6.1989 against the members of the opposite parties alleging therein, inter alia, that members of the opposite parites variously armed with danda, lathi and gun came to his Khalihan and assaulted him and thereafter entered into Baithaka and took away various articles worth Rs. 3,750.00 . On hulla, the villagers arrived there and the accused persons fled away. On the basis of the first information report, Dumra P.S. Case No. 0116/89 was registered under Sections 147, 452, 380, 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation submitted final report and also submitted report for prosecution of the informant under Secs. 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It also appears that in course of investigation, a protest petition was filed by the petitioner but final report was accepted on 23.3.90 and the learned Magistrate proceeded with the protest petition and the same was fixed for appearance of the petitioner on 12.4.90. For non-appearance of the petitioner on 12.4.90, the protest petition was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh complaint petition on 19.4.90. The learned Magistrate proceeded on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the petitioner and after holding due inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") issued processes against the accused persons under Secs. 204, Cr.P.C. The accused persons, however, challenged the order of issuance of processes against them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before the learned Sessions Jduge giving rise to the impugned order. 5. 204, Cr.P.C. The accused persons, however, challenged the order of issuance of processes against them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before the learned Sessions Jduge giving rise to the impugned order. 5. It is manifestly clear from the records of this case that the protest petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default on 12.4.90 and the protest petition was not considered nor any decision was taken thereupon. It is well settled that an order of dismissal under Sec. 203, Cr.P.C. is no bart to the entertainment of second complaint on the same facts but it would be done only in exceptional cases. In this connection, reference can be made to the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar V/s. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar -- . 6. From the materials on record, it must be held in this case that there was no adjudication at all by the learned Magistrate nor any decision was taken pursuant to the protest petition filed by the petitioner rather the protest petition was dismissed for default. The second complaint filed by the petitioner, therefore, was well maintainable on the same facts and the learned Magistrate had rightly proceeded on the basis of the second complaint and issued Processes against the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge, however, was not correct in holding that the second complaint was not maintainable on the same facts. The order passed by the learned Revisional Court, in my opinion, therefore, is wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. 7. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, I, therefore, allow this application and set aside the impugned order of the revisional Court and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is restored.