JUDGMENT Piggott, J.
1. Raja Ram Singh was tried at one trial by a magistrate of the first class on two charges framed under Section 503 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted on the former and convicted on the latter charge. The complainant, Muhammad Ah Khan, has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 25 to Raja Ram Singh on the ground that the charge of criminal intimidation was frivolous or vexatious. The question I have to determine is whether this order is legal in view of the fact that Raja Ram Singh was convicted on one of the two charges against him. I must take it that the complainant's case was that the two offences in question were committed in the course of one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, otherwise they would have been separately charged and triad separately. The provisions of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to such a state of facts unless the Magistrate who tried the case discharges or acquits the accused altogether. The Section speaks of "the case" as a whole, and contemplates a trial or inquiry ending in the unqualified acquittal or discharge of the accused. A complainant who, having a genuine grievance, wilfully exaggerates or distorts the same in ordar to aggravate the case against the accused is liable; in the discretion of the trial court, to be prosecuted for any offence against the Indian Penal Code which he may have committed; but the policy of the Legislature seems to be to limit the summary jurisdiction of the court under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to simple cases, in which the complainant is found to have been wholly in the wrong. There is authority for this view in the case of Mukti Bewa v. Jholu, Santra (1) (1890) I. L. R., 24 Calc, 53. I think that case was rightly decided and that it covers the facts now before me.
2. I set aside the order directing Muhammad Ali Khan to pay Rs. 25 as compensation. The money, if paid, will be refunded.