The respondent despite due and proper service as reported by the registry, is absent. The case is set ex-parte against him. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.10.2002 recorded by the learned Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, R.S.Pura in Civil Misc. File No.24 of 2002 titled Hardeep Kour v. Atam Singh, whereby he came to dismiss the application for restoration of the proceedings under section 488 Cr.PC to that there is no provision available in the Cr.PC to review an order passed in an application pending in criminal court and section 369 Cr.PC contains the aforesaid embargo in which review of the order or judgement is expressely barred. 3. It appears that proceedings under section 488 Cr.PC came to be instituted by the petitioner Hardeep Kour against her husband, Atam Singh for grant of monthly maintenance under section 488 Cr.PC. The said proceedings came to be dismissed on 14.9.2002 in default for the appearance of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner came to file application for restoration of the said proceedings. The learned Inquiry Magistrate came to dismiss the same by virtue of impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The law is settled on the point that the proceedings under section 488 Cr.PC are essentially civil in nature. Application under this section is not a complaint with the meaning of section 2(e) of the State Code of Criminal Procedure 1989 and the person proceeded against, is not an accused. Besides under Chapter XXXVI which deals with maintenance of wife and children, relief given is of a civil nature only and the Criminal Procedure Code is applied for the purpose of summary and speedly disposal in the interest of society so that helpless and forlorn children are not left on the road. An inquiry under this chapter a quasi criminal one. Admission can be taken into consideration and acted upon. Application as indicated not being a complaint, it cannot be referred to another officer for inquiry under section 202 Cr. PC. The inquiry Magistrate cannot hold a preliminary inquiry before issuing notice to the other party nor the case is to be decided on the principles applicable to the trial of accused in criminal case. In a case titled as S.K. Alauddin Alias Alai Khan v. Khadiza Bibi alias Mst. PC. The inquiry Magistrate cannot hold a preliminary inquiry before issuing notice to the other party nor the case is to be decided on the principles applicable to the trial of accused in criminal case. In a case titled as S.K. Alauddin Alias Alai Khan v. Khadiza Bibi alias Mst. Khodeja Khatum and others reported as 1991 Criminal Law Journal 2035, the Honble High Court of Calcutta drawing support from AIR 1963 SC 1521 has held that the proceedings under section 125 Cr.PC, which correspondence to State Cr.PC are of civil nature in which the Magistrate can invoke inherent powers to recall his earlier order finally disposing a proceedings of this nature provided sufficient grounds are shown. 6. I fully agree with said view of the Calcutta High Court. Accordingly, I allow this revision, restore the petition filed for restoration of the petition under section 488 Cr. PC, dismissed on 14.9.2002 and restore the same provided sufficient grounds are made out in restoring proceedings under section 488 Cr. PC. Let copy of petition together with copy of this order be sent to the Inquiry Magistrate forthwith by the registry with the direction to proceed with the application in accordance with law and restore the same, if sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner for her absence on the relevant date when the same came to be dismissed in default of her appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to cause appearance of the petitioner on 20.8.2003 before the Inquiry Magistrate.