Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned Advocates. 2. Heard Mr. S.D. Zoting, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Anoop Parihar, APP for the respondent no.1. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the judgment and order passed on 13.07.2010, in Criminal Revision No.112/2009 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, whereby the revision application was allowed and the order passed by learned Trial Magistrate at J.M.F.C., Court No.1, Khamgaon below Exh. 22 on 17.08.2009 in Criminal Case No.470/2007 is set aside. 4. It appears that one Shri Kishor Babubhai had filed a complaint against both the accused under Section 500 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The complainant was directed to take certain steps. The complainant had not taken steps and hence the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution on 31.07.2008. The complainant had moved for restoration of the complaint on the same day on the ground that the complainant had gone out of town and could not remain present when the case was called and his Advocate also had gone to attend personal work. Under these circumstances, the complainant had prayed for restoration of the complaint, which was objected on behalf of the Advocate representing the accused on the ground that the complaint cannot be restored as there is no such power with the learned Trial Magistrate to restore the complaint. The learned Trial Magistrate was pleased to restore the complaint after perusing the application, affidavit and say filed by the other side on 17.08.2008. Thus, complaint was restored and complainant was required to take further steps. The said order was challenged in a Criminal Revision No.112/2009 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon on the ground that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of the complaint amongst other grounds. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon by the impugned judgment made a reference to ruling in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and another Vs. S.N. Thakur and another AIR 1986 SCC 1440agreed with the revision applicant that Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction to restore the complaint. It is also observed that the second complaint is permissible in law if it could be brought within the limitation. 5. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and another Vs. S.N. Thakur and another AIR 1986 SCC 1440agreed with the revision applicant that Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction to restore the complaint. It is also observed that the second complaint is permissible in law if it could be brought within the limitation. 5. The difficulty expressed by learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the second complaint even if is lodged may suffer from laches or delay. 6. The learned Advocate for the respondent opposed the petition and made a reference to the ruling in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and another Vs. S.N. Thakur and another, reported in AIR 1986 SCC 1440 and contended that when a complaint was dismissed, it was final order and the revision was correctly allowed according to law. 7. One cannot dispute the proposition that the learned Trial Magistrate could not have entertained an application to restore the dismissed complaint for want of any inherent jurisdiction to restore the complaint. However, merely because that Magistrate had no inherent power to restore the complaint which was dismissed, the remedy to the complainant is not lost because he could have filed Revision against dismissal of the complaint or could have lodged second complaint as permissible if the complainant wanted to avail any such remedy, he can also pray for condonation of delay to adopt appropriate remedy and such delay may be condoned on account of reasonable cause that the complainant has lost time due to the course chosen by the accused to approach the revisional Court and the time spent by the complainant in this Court. If such an application for condonation of delay is filed, the Court concerned is expected to pass an appropriate just and proper order in the interest of justice. In view of this observation the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.