Section 256 CrPC dismissal leads to acquittal, and restoration cannot be sought through inherent jurisdiction.

Dismissal of a summons complaint for the complainant's non-appearance under Section 256 CrPC operates as an acquittal of the accused. The Magistrate has no express or inherent power to recall or restore such an order once passed. Where the Code provides a statutory remedy against the resulting acquittal, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass that remedy or revive the complaint. The restoration request was therefore not maintainable before the Magistrate, and inherent interference was not available.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint dismissed for default under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and resulting in acquittal of the accused could be restored by the Magistrate or interfered with in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant in a summons case attracts Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, by its own force, results in acquittal of the accused. The Magistrate has no express or inherent power to recall or restore such an order once passed. When the Code provides an appellate remedy against the order of acquittal, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is not to be used to bypass that remedy or to undo a lawful order passed within the ambit of the statute.

Conclusion: The request for restoration was not maintainable before the Magistrate, and the High Court would not exercise inherent powers to set aside the acquittal order and revive the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate cannot restore a complaint dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be invoked where the Code provides a statutory remedy against the resulting acquittal.

---