Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

12.[3] The majority judgment thus accepted the challenge, allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint with following observations:-

13. The law declared in Taluqdar[2] has consistently been followed, for instance, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh10 it was observed: “It is now well settled that a second complaint can lie only on fresh facts or even on the previous facts only if a special case is made out”. The view taken in Bindeshwari10 was followed in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and another vs. S.N. Thakur and another11. 13.[1] In Jatinder Singh and Others vs. Ranjit Kaur12 the issue was whether the first complaint having been dismissed for default, could the second complaint be maintained. The matter was considered as under:-

13.2. In Ranvir Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another13 the issue was set out in para 23 of the decision and the discussion that followed thereafter was as under:-

13.3. In Poonam Chand Jain and Another vs. Fazru14 the issue whether after the dismissal of the earlier complaint had attained finality, could a second complaint be maintained on identical facts was considered as under:-

(c) the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, or

(d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings.

16. This Court in Pramatha Nath[2] made it very clear that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again. In para 50 of the judgment the majority judgment of this Court opined that fresh evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record. This Court very clearly held that it cannot be settled law which permits the complainant to place some evidence before the Magistrate which are in his possession and then if the complaint is dismissed adduce some more evidence. According to this Court, such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the law. (para 50, p. 899)

17. This question again came up for consideration before this Court in Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur12. There also this Court by relying on the principle in Pramatha Nath[2] held that there is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which debars a complainant from filing a second complaint on the same allegation as in the first complaint. But this Court added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses a complaint on merits a second complaint on the same facts could not be made unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. This Court held in para 12, if the dismissal of the first complaint is not on merit but the dismissal is for the default of the complainant then there is no bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. However, if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merit the position will be different.

18. Saying so, the learned Judges in Ranjit Kaur12 held that the controversy has been settled by this Court in and quoted the observation of Kapur,

19. Again in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy15, a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered this question in para 19 at p. 740 of the Report. The learned Judges of this Court held that a second complaint is not completely barred nor is there any statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts in a case where a previous complaint was dismissed without assigning any reason. The Magistrate under Section 204 of the Code can take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In Mahesh Chand15 this Court relied on the ratio in Pramatha Nath[2] and held if the first complaint had been dismissed the second complaint can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances and thereafter the exceptional circumstances pointed out in were reiterated. Therefore, this Court AIR 2003 SC 702 holds that the ratio in Pramatha Nath[2] is still holding the field. The same principle has been reiterated once again by this Court in Hira Lal v. State of U.P.16 In para 14 of the judgment this Court expressly quoted the ratio in Mahesh Chand15 discussed hereinabove.

20. Following the aforesaid principles which are more or less settled and are holding the field since 1962 and have been repeatedly followed by this Court, we are of the view that the second complaint in this case was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits. So the second complaint is not maintainable. This Court finds that the core of both the complaints is the same. Nothing has been disclosed in the second complaint which is substantially new and not disclosed in first complaint. No case is made out that even after the exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the of the first complainant. In fact, such a case could not be made out since the facts in both the complaints are almost identical. Therefore, the second complaint is not covered within exceptional circumstances explained in Pramatha Nath[2]. In that view of the matter the second complaint in the facts of this case, cannot be entertained.” (Emphasised supplied)

13.4. In Udai Shankar Awasthi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another17, where the earlier complaint was dismissed after the examination of witnesses on behalf of complainant, the matter was dealt with as under:-

13.5. In Ravinder Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others19 the matter was considered from the standpoint whether a frustrated litigant be permitted to give vent to his frustration and whether a person be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. The discussion was as under:-

27. In Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh22 this Court has held that it is equally true that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by enabling them to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts in a cheap manner. In such a fact situation, the court must not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings. … … …

33. The High Court has dealt with the issue involved herein and the matter stood closed at the instance of Respondent 1 himself. Therefore, there can be no justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution on that basis afresh. The inherent power of the court in dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger interest of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done. Thus, it is a judicial obligation on the court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. It may be so necessary to curb the menace of criminal prosecution as an instrument of operation of needless harassment. A person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in the inherent power of the court and the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount duty of the court to protect an apparently innocent person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable complaint.”

14. The application of the principles laid down in Taluqdar[2] 2 in Jatinder Singh12 shows that “a second complaint is permissible depending upon how the complaint happened to be dismissed at the first instance”. It was further laid down that “if the dismissal of the complaint was not on merit but on default of the complainant to be present there is no bar in the complainant moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint on the same facts. But if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merits the position could be different”. To similar effect are the conclusions in Ranvir Singh13 and Poonam Chand Jain14. Para 16 of the Poonam Chand Jain14 also considered the effect of para 50 of the majority judgment in Talukdar[2]. These cases, therefore, show that if the earlier disposal of the complaint was on merits and in a manner known to law, the second complaint on “almost identical facts” which were raised in the first complaint would not be maintainable. What has been laid down is that “if the core of both the complaints is same”, the second complaint ought not to be entertained.

15. If the facts of the present matter are considered in the light of these principles, it is clear that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in the first complaint contained the basic allegations that the vehicle belonging to the father was sold after the death of the father; that signatures of the father on Form 29 and 30 were forged; that signatures on the affidavit annexed with Form 29 and 30 were also forged; and that on the basis of such forged documents the benefit of “sale consideration of the vehicle” was derived by the accused. The order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, shows that after considering the evidence and documents produced on behalf of the complainant, no prima facie case was found and the complaint was rejected under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The stand taken before the Revisional Court discloses that at that stage some new facts were said to be in possession of the complainant and as such liberty was sought to withdraw the Revision with further liberty to file a fresh complaint. The liberty was not given and it was observed that if there were new facts, the complainant, in law would be entitled to present a new complaint and as such there was no need of any permission from the Court. The Revisional Court was definitely referring to the law laid down by this Court on the basis of the principles in Taluqdar[2]. Thereafter a complaint with new material in the form of a credit note and Registration Certificate was filed. The core allegations, however, remained the same. The only difference was that the second complaint referred to additional material in support of the basic allegations. Again, in terms of principle laid down in para 50 of Taluqdar[2] as amplified in para 16 in Poonam Chand Jain14, nothing was stated as to why said additional material could not be obtained with reasonable diligence.

16. Reliance was, however, placed by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate, on para 18 of the decision of this Court in Shivshankar Singh20. In that case a Protest Petition was filed by the complainant even before a final report was filed by the police. While said Protest Petition was pending consideration, the final report was filed, whereafter second Protest Petition was filed. Challenge raised by the accused that the second Protest Petition was not maintainable, was accepted by the High Court. In the light of these facts the matter came to be considered by this Court as under:-

17. As against the facts in Shivshankar20, the present case stands on a different footing. There was no legal infirmity in the first complaint filed in the present matter. The complaint was filed more than a year after the sale of the vehicle which meant the complainant had reasonable time at his disposal. The earlier complaint was dismissed after the Judicial Magistrate found that no prima facie case was made out; the earlier complaint was not disposed of on any technical ground; the material adverted to in the second complaint was only in the nature of supporting material; and the material relied upon in the second complaint was not such which could not have been procured earlier. Pertinently, the core allegations in both the complaints were identical. In the circumstances, the instant matter is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Taluqdar[2] as explained in Jatinder Singh12 and Poonam Chand Jain14. The High Court was thus not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable.

18. In the aforesaid premises, we allow these appeals, set aside the decision of the High Court and dismiss Complaint Case No.9226 of 2014 as not being maintainable. The amount deposited by the appellants shall now be returned to them along with any interest accrued thereon. …………………………J. [Uday Umesh Lalit] …………………………J. [Vineet Saran] New Delhi; March 02, 2020.