that the said case is about five years old and it was
incumbent upon the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, to reduce the pendency of the old cases
specifically under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and hence only in order to reduce the pendency the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, has dismissed
the said complaint. The learned counsel for the applicant
has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated
28.01.2014 passed by this Court (Coram:-A.M.Thipsay, J.)
wherein this Court had also remanded the matter in the
similar circumstances and had allowed the revision
application. The impugned order was thus set aside. In
the said case also the present applicant was the
petitioner. Similarly by orders of several Courts the
complaint filed by the revision petitioner have been
restored to its original status. The learned counsel for
the applicant rightly submits that in order to reduce the
pendency of the matter it would not be appropriate for
any Court to dismiss the complaint for want of
prosecution. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the
order passed below Exhibit- 1 dated 27.12.2013 is not an
order under Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code. In
that eventuality the complainant would be at liberty to
file an application seeking leave to appeal and seek
remand of the matter. The said impugned order is a
cryptic order, assigning no legal provision for dismissal
