Complaint limitation and defect curing: original filing date protected, and quashment was refused after trial began.

Complaint proceedings were not liable to be quashed where the complaint was originally presented within limitation and later returned only for curing defects, including deficit court fee. The return and re-presentation were treated as administrative processing, so the original filing date continued to govern limitation under the principle that an act of court should not prejudice a litigant. The accused could not object to the complainant correcting defects before cognizance, and once the trial had commenced, quashment was found inappropriate in the absence of a valid ground for interference under inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground that the Magistrate returned and permitted re-presentation of the complaint for curing defects including deficit court fee, and whether the petitioners could seek quashment when the trial had already commenced.

Analysis: The complaint had been initially presented within limitation, and the subsequent returns were treated as part of the administrative processing of defects rather than as judicial orders affecting the merits. The Court applied the principle that an act of court should not prejudice a litigant, and held that the original presentation date remained material for limitation. It further held that the accused had no right to object to the complainant curing defects in payment of court fee before cognizance, and that the proceedings had already reached the stage of trial, making quashment inappropriate in the absence of a valid ground to interfere under the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition for quashment was not maintainable on the grounds urged and was rejected.

---