Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide his order dated 16.2.1996 for the reasons given in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned order, which are reproduced as follows : "6. Next contention on behalf of applicant/accused was that the present complaint is a second complaint in the sequence of the earlier one which was dismissed in default, on the basis of same facts. The present complaint also does not disclose the reasons and sufficient cause for the non-appearance of complainant on account of which the earlier complaint was dismissed. On the other hand it was argued on behalf of complainant/respondent that the present complaint was filed without any delay on the same date on which it was dismissed in default. Hence, the second complaint is to be treated in sequence of the first complaint and the proceedings in the second complaint are also to be treated in continuation of the proceedings of first complaint. 7. I do not find myself in agreement with the contentions put forward on behalf of complainant/respondent because the second complaint cannot be treated in continuation of the first complaint as in the second complaint fresh evidence is to be led. Accordingly the limitation period is also to be counted by keeping in view the date of institution of second complaints as the second complainants proceedings are not to be treated in continuation of the proceedings of first complaint which is a separate one. The filing of second complaint is not the restoration of the first complaint, as such there is no continuation of proceedings. Hence, if seen from this angle, I find the second complaint time barred as the same is beyond the period of limitation of one month as has been prescribed in Section 142 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which says that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be holder in due course of cheque such complaint is made within one month of the date of which the cause of action arise under clause (c) on the provision of Section 138. Hence, the cause of action in the present case arose to the complaint after 15 days when he issued notice to the accused through registered post on 2.5.1992 and when the accused did not make the payment, accordingly, the first complaint was filed on 9.6.1992 it was dismissed in default on 28.7.1992. In this manner though the second complaint was filed on the same date on which the first complaint was dismissed in default i.e. 28.7.1992 yet it goes beyond the period of limitation of one month in which it is required to be made as per the provisions of Section 142 (b) which, are mandatory. Moreover, the dismissal of complaint in summoning case automatically result into the acquittal of accused. Accordingly, in view of my above discussion, it is ordered that the proceedings against the accused stands dropped. File be consigned to record room". 2. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 16.2.1996 may be set aside and directions be issued to the learned Magistrate to continue with the complaint. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner was not to file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but he could file an appeal against the acquittal. Otherwise also I have gone through the impugned order and do not see any illegality in the same. The present petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed.