DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The petitioner prefers the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 07-09-2016 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 17 of 2015 filed by the respondent/OP herein, where the same was allowed and the complaint bearing no. 88/2003, filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhojpur Ara (for short “District Forum”) was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Kamta Prasad Singh opened a savings bank account bearing No.543 with Baruana Branch of the Punjab National bank on 8-9-2001 and it was operated till 17-11-2002, regularly. On 19-11-2003, when the complainant visited the OP to withdraw money, the cheque presented by him was not honored. Being aggrieved by the ill treatment of the bank, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum bearing No.07/2003 against the OP Bank for deficiency in service. This complaint was clubbed with another complaint, bearing No.06/2003 by the complainant against Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, as the facts of both the cases were similar. 3. The OP filed the written statement and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable; as the complainant, not being an agriculturist, withdrew the amount in collusion on the basis of the Kisan Credit Card in the names of other people and a sum of Rs.52,05,000/- was withdrawn by him by way of cheating. Apart from this, some other fraudulent acts were done by him, for which an F.I.R had been lodged; therefore, the Consumer Forum could not adjudicate the matter. 4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction and because of the pendency of criminal complaint. The complainant preferred two appeals bearing Nos. 235/2003 and 236/2003 against the order of the District Forum passed in complaint No.06/2003 and 07/2003. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the complainant preferred a Revision Petition No.3318 of 2004 before this Commission against the order passed in Appeal No.235/2003. The Commission dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the decision of the lower fora vide order dated 05-08-2009. 5. In 2013, the complainant was acquitted of all the criminal charges levelled against him by the OP bank. So, on acquittal, again he approached the District Forum, Bhojpur vide Complaint No.88 of 2013 for adjudication of the case on merits. The District Forum vide interim order dated 27-07-2015 held that the previous finding of the forum in complaint case No.07/2003 does not operate as Res- Judicata as it was not heard and finally decided, but was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On 07-09-2016, the OP preferred Revision Petition No.17 of 2015 before the State Commission against the order dated 27-07-2015 of the District Forum. The State Commission allowed the revision petition. It set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed complaint No.88 of 2013. 6. Hence, this revision petition. 7. We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the judgment of the Court of S. B. Tripathi, Regional Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. The order of the said Court is reproduced below: “Therefore accused Kamta Prasad is not found guilty of the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B of IPC in the absence of evidence and is discharged of the charges levelled against the accused.” Therefore, the petitioner/complainant having been acquitted of all charges against him in the criminal proceedings preferred a fresh Complaint No.88 of 2013 based upon fresh cause of action for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-bank. In our view, the concept of “Res Judicata” is not applicable. 8. On the basis of discussion above we set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order dated 27-07-2015 of the District Forum. The revision petition is allowed. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 04-04-2018 for further proceedings. | 
