JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, J. - Challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Court of Sessions, and Judicial Magistrate, Una, the complainant, who is an Advocate in practice, has come up before this Court seeking setting aside of these orders and issuance of directions to the Judicial Magistrate to proceed against the respondent, under Section 204 CrPC, launching his prosecution for criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 of IPC. 2. The gist of the facts apposite to decide this petition traces its history to a Criminal Complaint filed by the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, HP, under Section 190 (1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after now called CrPC, seeking prosecution of respondent Harnam Singh, for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. 3. The petitioner filed the said complaint on Sep. 21, 2007, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, HP. Vide order dated Jun 7, 2006, passed in Complaint No. 62- 11/06/05, titled Dinesh Chander Sharma v. Harnam Singh, the Magistrate did not find a prima facie evidence for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 500 of IPC, and instead of issuing process under Section 204 CrPC, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. 4. The complainant challenged the said dismissal by filing a petition before Sessions Court, Una, Distt. Una, HP. Vide order dated Oct 12, 2006, passed in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Una, HP, upheld the order of the dismissal of the complaint. 5. After that, the present petitioner, instead of challenging the said order in this Court, preferred to file a fresh complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of CrPC, and this time introduced Sections 466, 468 and 471 apart from reiterating Section 500 of IPC. In paragraph 6 of the new complaint, dated Oct 01, 2007, which is the subject matter of this adjudication, the complainant stated that inadvertently he had omitted the facts. As such, he was filing the new complaint. In paragraph 6 of the new complaint, dated Oct 01, 2007, which is the subject matter of this adjudication, the complainant stated that inadvertently he had omitted the facts. As such, he was filing the new complaint. It is appropriate to extract paragraph 6 of the complaint to understood his contention, which reads as follows: "That the complainant instituted complaint case No. 62-II-06/05 against the accused on the abovementioned facts and circumstances except the fact of accused's connivance with the said DC and others in getting lodged the said false FIR against him through the said Joginder Singh which he inadvertently omitted to mention therein. In addition thereto, he did not think it necessary as per provision of Section 200(1), Cr.P.C. either to produce at the preliminary evidence stage certified copies of the said case diaries and order of acquittal made by Court of ACJM, Una on 26-05-2005 in the related above mentioned prosecution case or to cause the production of the related official records and rather chose to rely upon his self-prepared copies of the said case diaries and his statement made to that effect which were not taken in to consideration by the concerned Court which caused miscarriage of justice. Hence, this second complaint." 6. Vide order dated August 13, 2012, passed in Criminal complaint No. 206-I-07/137-II-07, titled Dinesh Chander Sharma v. Harnam Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.1, Una, dismissed the complaint. The grounds of dismissal were that the extracts of the case diary, which contain the alleged imputations, were never proved. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged this order of dismissal by filing a Criminal Revision before Sessions Court, Una, HP, under Section 397 of CrPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act. Vide order dated Jul 21, 2016, passed in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2012, the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Una), dismissed the said Criminal Revision Petition. 8. The Sessions Court dismissed the criminal revision on two counts. Firstly, that revision was barred by limitation, without accompanying any separate application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, on merits, the Court upheld the view taken by the Magistrate. 9. 8. The Sessions Court dismissed the criminal revision on two counts. Firstly, that revision was barred by limitation, without accompanying any separate application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Secondly, on merits, the Court upheld the view taken by the Magistrate. 9. Challenging the dismissal of the criminal revision, vide order dated July 21, 2016, passed by Sessions Court, and also the order dated August 13, 2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC. 10. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and counsel for the respondent, and I have gone through the entire record. ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 11. Except for the fact of connivance with the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner himself has mentioned that he had instituted complaint No. 62-II-06/05 against the accused on the same allegations as were leveled in the previous complaint. After the dismissal of the first complaint, the complainant cannot file the second complaint just by adding a few more penal violations. 12. The complainant filed the second complaint by adding three more Sections of IPC, i.e., Sections 466, 467, and 470 of IPC, claiming that he did not mention about these Sections in the previous complaint. 13. In Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, (1962) AIR SC 876 , the majority view of a three-member bench of Supreme Court, holds, 48. ...Under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code the judgment which the Magistrate has to form must be based on the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry if any. He must apply is mind to the materials and form his judgment whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore if he has not misdirected himself as to the scope of the enquiry made under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, and has judicially applied his mind to the material before him and then proceeds to make his order it cannot be said that he has acted erroneously. Therefore if he has not misdirected himself as to the scope of the enquiry made under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, and has judicially applied his mind to the material before him and then proceeds to make his order it cannot be said that he has acted erroneously. An order of dismissal under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interest of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into. ILR 12 Lahore 9 at p. 12; Doraisami v. Subramania, (1918) AIR Madras 484 . In regard to the adducing of new facts for the bringing of a fresh complaint the Special Bench in the judgment under appeal did not accept the view of the Bombay High Court or the Patna High Court in the cases above quoted and adopted the opinion of Maclean C. J. in ILR 28 Calcutta 211 at p. 216, affirmed by a Full Bench in ILR 28 Calcutta 652 (FB). It held therefore that a fresh complaint can be entertained where there is manifest error, or manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order or when fresh evidence is forthcoming. 14. In Mahesh Chand v. B Janardhan Reddy, (2003) 1 SCC 734 , a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds, 19. Keeping in view the settled legal principles, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in holding that the second complaint was completely barred. It is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Sec. 204, Cr. P. C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Sec. 204, Cr. P. C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. As held in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar's case (supra) second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further, second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter, therefore, should have been remitted back to the learned Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence had been made out or not. 15. This second complaint does not fall under the parameters and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. In the second complaint, the complainant mentioned that he could not narrate the commission of some of the criminal offences. The complainant was an Advocate in practice and very well conversant with the law. Thus, the explanation offered is neither convincing nor acceptable. Consequently, the complainant could not file the second complaint just by stating that he had forgotten to mention some sections and by adding a few more lines. 16. I have waded through both the complaint and the order sheets. The allegations made were only in the case diary, which is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, except only in rarest of rare cases. 17. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order, which are well reasoned. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in these. Given the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is dismissed. The pending applications, if any, stand closed.