ORDER 1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.8407/2021, which was dismissed as not maintainable. 2. The applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the documents were not supplied by the applicant to the respondent, therefore, by order dated 19.03.2021, the JMFC, Gwalior in Complaint Case No. 861/2018 dismissed the complaint on account of non-supply of legible copies of the documents to the respondent and the revision filed against the said order was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. The applicant was required to supply the legible copies of the documents to the respondent, but it is alleged that in spite of various opportunities, the documents were not supplied and, accordingly, by order dated 19.03.2021, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that since the applicant has not supplied the copies of the documents to the respondent, therefore, it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the complaint and, accordingly, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, it appears that on the very same day, an application was filed by the applicant that file containing the documents was misplaced. Today it has been relocated and, therefore, he is ready and willing to supply the legible copies of the documents, but the said prayer was rejected on the ground that the complaint has also been dismissed for want of prosecution and the Trial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review its own order. The revision which was filed by the applicant against the order of dismissal was dismissed as not maintainable. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is incorrect to say that the applicant was not interested in prosecuting the complaint. In fact, it was the mistake on the part of his counsel. The revision which was filed by the applicant against the order of dismissal was dismissed as not maintainable. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is incorrect to say that the applicant was not interested in prosecuting the complaint. In fact, it was the mistake on the part of his counsel. Although for the first time the case was fixed on 11.06.2019 for supply of the documents, but later on, because of lock-down on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, counsel for the applicant misplaced the file and could not supply the legible copies of the documents to the respondent and on the date, when the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution, the applicant had made a prayer for grant of opportunity to supply the documents, but in the light of the provisions of Section 362 of CrPC, his prayer was not accepted. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that the litigant should not suffer due to the fault on the part of the counsel. The entire documents were already supplied by the applicant to its counsel and, therefore, if the documents could not be supplied to the respondent by the counsel, then the applicant should not suffer. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has supported the dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Trial Court in its order dated 19.03.2021 has stated that the case was fixed for supply of documents to the respondent on 11.06.2019 and as many as 8 opportunities were given, but the documents were not supplied and, therefore, it is clear that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint and, accordingly, it was dismissed. It is equally true that on the very same day, counsel for the applicant had moved an application seeking permission to supply the documents, but in view of Section 362 of CrPC, the said prayer was not accepted. It is well established principle of law that the once an order has been passed by a Criminal Court, then it has no jurisdiction to review its own order as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 . 8. It is well established principle of law that the once an order has been passed by a Criminal Court, then it has no jurisdiction to review its own order as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 . 8. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether dismissal of the complaint on account of non-supply of document to the respondent can be affirmed or not ? 9. It is true that it is the duty of the complainant to supply the documents on the first date of the appearance of the respondent or the same should have been sent along with the notice. Keeping the complaint pending for no good reason cannot be appreciated. The Court has to take a firm stand on this issue. However, the only silver lining in favour of the applicant is that on the very day, when the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution, the counsel for the applicant had moved an application pointing out that his office file has been re-located and he is ready to supply the documents. However, the said prayer was not entertained in the light of the bar contained under Section 362 of CrPC. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the complaint has been dismissed due to the fault of the counsel, therefore, counsel for the applicant is ready to pay the cost for the restoration of the complaint. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the submission made by the counsel for the applicant that he himself is ready to pay the cost for not supplying the copy of the documents to the respondent and for keeping complaint in suspended animation by not supplying the documents, this Court is of the considered opinion that a liberal view can be taken in favour of the applicant. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Complaint Case No.861/2018 is hereby set aside. One opportunity is granted to the applicant to supply a complete set of complaint along with the documents to the respondent. However, this opportunity is subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 20,000/- which shall be a condition precedent for restoration of the complaint. The cost shall be payable to the respondent. 12. One opportunity is granted to the applicant to supply a complete set of complaint along with the documents to the respondent. However, this opportunity is subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 20,000/- which shall be a condition precedent for restoration of the complaint. The cost shall be payable to the respondent. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 25.03.2022 and on the said date, not only the applicant shall deposit the cost of Rs. 20,000/-, but shall also supply a complete set of complaint with all documents to the respondent or if the counsel for the respondent does not appear, then the counsel for the applicant shall submit a complete set of documents in the Court itself for supply of the same to the respondent or his counsel. It is made clear that in case, if the applicant or his counsel fails to appear before the Trial Court on 25.03.2022 or fails to deposit the cost of Rs. 20,000/-or fails to supply complete set of the complaint to the respondent or his counsel, then this order shall automatically lose its effect and the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Trial Court shall stand revived. 13. With aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.