ORDER R. Basant, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed under S.258 CrPC by the learned Magistrate dropping further proceedings. The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has gone perversely wrong in assuming that powers under S.258 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) can be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The proceedings have been instituted on the basis of a private complaint. Cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under S.341 and S.323 IPC (Penal Code, 1860) on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein. 3. It is trite, and a reading of S.258 CrPC as also the dictum in John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, 2001 KHC 648 : 2001 (2) KLT SN 110 : 2001 (2) KLJ NOC 34 : 2001 (2) KLJ NOC 61 : AIR 2001 SC 2651 : 2001 (6) SCC 30 make it crystal clear, that powers under S.258 CrPC cannot be invoked in a case instituted on a private complaint. Such powers can be invoked only in respect of a summons case instituted on police report. 4. After the decision in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, 2004 KHC 1137 : 2004 (3) KLT 382 : 2004 (2) KLJ 727 : 2004 (7) SCC 338 : AIR 2004 SC 4674, the dictum in K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, 1992 KHC 4 : 1992 (1) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 88 : AIR 1992 SC 2206 : 1992 (1) MWN (Cr) 36 : 1992 (2) Punj LR 35 : 1992 (1) KLT 1 stands overruled and the Magistrate who has once issued processes has no jurisdictional competence to review his own order and drop proceedings. So reckoned, it is evident that the proceedings must continue and must be disposed of in accordance with law and afresh by the learned Magistrate. 5. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 03/03/2008 to continue the proceedings. Return the records to the Court below forthwith.