Private complaint procedure requires sworn examination before dismissal; absence alone is not enough to close the complaint permanently.

A Magistrate dealing with a private complaint must examine the complainant on oath under the CrPC before deciding whether to take cognizance or dismiss the matter under Sections 190(1)(a), 200 and 203. Mere repeated absence of the complainant does not create a specific statutory ground for dismissal before the sworn statement is recorded, although the court need not wait indefinitely for appearance. If the complaint is closed in such circumstances, the closure is not an acquittal. Where the absence was explained as illness, the complaint was restored so it could be considered on merits and the dismissal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in closing the complaint before recording the complainant's sworn statement on account of repeated absence, and whether the dismissal order should be set aside.

Analysis: Under the scheme of Sections 190(1)(a), 200 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Magistrate receiving a private complaint is required to examine the complainant on oath before deciding whether to take cognizance or dismiss the complaint. There is no specific provision authorising dismissal merely because the complainant is absent before the sworn statement is recorded. At the same time, the Court held that it would not be proper to require the Magistrate to wait indefinitely for the complainant's appearance. In such a situation, the complaint may be closed, but such closure does not amount to an acquittal. Since the complainant's absence was stated to be due to illness, the interests of justice required an opportunity to prosecute the complaint on merits.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the complaint was set aside and the revision petition was allowed.

---