Maintainability Of Second Complaint In Exceptional Circumstances Depends Upon The Manner In Which First Complaint Came To Be Dismissed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a second criminal complaint can be maintainable only in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed. 

In this case, the complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate against the accused alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC etc. This was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that there is no prima facie case as it falls in the Fourth exception of U/s 499 of IPC. Challenging this dismissal order, the complainant filed a Criminal Revision before the Madras High Court but the same was withdrawn. Later he filed a second complaint before the Magistrate which contained the same averments he had made in the first one. In this complaint, he stated that he had filed a second complaint "as per the order of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court". Apparently, the Magistrate took cognizance of this complaint and summon the accused. The accused challenged the summoning order before the High Court which then quashed the complaint.

Before the Apex Court, the appellant-complainant relied on the decisions in Pramantha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar" AIR 1962 Supreme Court 876" and "Shivshankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another" (2012) 1 SCC 130, to contend that the second complaint is not barred. Referring to these decisions, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari said;

" The second complaint can be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed. To say it differently, if the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on a technical ground and/or by returning a reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not have possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint."

The court noted that, in this case, when the first complaint was filed primarily under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, the Judicial Magistrate was well within his jurisdictional competence to find out whether a prima facie case for summoning the accused was made out or not.

"This essentially involved application of judicial mind to reach a definite conclusion as to whether or not the accused be summoned. In the instant case, the learned Judicial Magistrate having found that the allegations made by the appellant were in the teeth of fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, he declined to issue process to the respondents. Such dismissal cannot be said to be without application of judicial mind. The application of judicial mind and arriving at an erroneous conclusion are two distinct things. The Court even after due application of mind may reach to an erroneous conclusion and such an order is always justiciable before a superior Court. Even if the said Order is set aside, it does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind.", the court said.

The court also observed that the High Court order in revision petition cannot be construed to have permitted the appellant to file a second complaint on identical set of facts. Holding thus, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Case details

B R K Aathithan vs Sun Group | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022 | CrA 2080­-2083 of 2022 | 29 Nov 2022 | Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari

For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Sibi Kargil,Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Mr. L.R. Venkatesan, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Niranjan, Adv. Mr. K.K. Chauhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Adv. Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Mr. Harsh Buch, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Jain, Adv. Mr. Satyanarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishwaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Harnaman Singh, Adv. Mr. P. Gandeepan, Adv. Mrs. Koj Yaayung, Adv. Mr. Kashyap, Adv.

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 190,200 - The second complaint can be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed. To say it differently, if the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on a technical ground and/or by returning a reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not have possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint - Referred to  Pramantha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876 and Shivshankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2012) 1 SCC 130. (Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 204 - The application of judicial mind and arriving at an erroneous conclusion are two distinct things. The Court even after due application of mind may reach to an erroneous conclusion and such an order is always justiciable before a superior Court. Even if the said Order is set aside, it does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind.  (Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 499, 500 - First defamation complaint dismissed by Magistrate observing that there is no prima facie case as it falls under fourth exception - Revision petition before HC filed was withdrawn - Second complaint filed before Magistrate with same set of facts - High Court quashed the complaint - While dismissing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: Even if the order of Judicial Magistrate while dismissing the first complaint was erroneous in law, it does not amount to non­application of mind by the trial court.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment