When a Magistrate conducts an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses the complaint on m

SAMTA NAIDU & ANR. V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.367-368 OF 2020 Arising out of special leave petition (Crl.) Nos.4418-4419 of 2019.   

“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”

The brief facts of the case are as follows: G.S. Naidu, who purchased a Maruthi 800 car on 1995, has three sons and an unmarried daughter.  He died on 12th December, 2001. His second son has filed a case on his younger brother and his wife, stating that on 2nd November 2010 his brother and his wife have sold the vehicles by using forged signatures of his father on the form 29 and 30 and also forged signature on the affidavit annexed with form 29 and 30. The complaint went before the Judicial Magistrate first class, Jabalpur, where the complaint was rejected on the basis of evidence and document produced and no prima facie case is made against the accused. Later the Appellant decided to withdraw the complaint and to file a fresh complaint on the basis of certain facts but the request was opposed. While issuing notice, the court directed the appellant to submit 45000 in the registration of the court within two weeks.

A question arose whether a second complaint will be maintainable when the previous complaint was not been dismissed on merits but for the failure of the complainant to put in the process fees for effecting service.

Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Advocate, appeared in support of the Appeal and stated that using of forged signature amounts to sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). He stated that the High Court was in error in rejecting the Revision applications. According to the case of Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy, it was held that 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.

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent stated that according to section 202 and 203 of Criminal Procedure Code, the second complaint will not be maintainable unless there is any exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances include

1. Where the previous order was passed on incomplete record, or

2. On a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or

3. The order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, or

4. Where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings.

Thus this second complaint does not include any of these circumstances, it is not maintainable.

In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh it was observed that second complaint can lie only on the fresh facts or previous facts only if a special case is made.

The court is of the opinion that bringing of fresh complaint is a gross abuse of process of court and is not with the further interests of justice. In the view of High Court, if any complaint fails in proving the facts and evidences then it cannot adduce some more evidences. This Court in Pramatha Nath case 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.

The Supreme Court has observed that if the principles of both the complaints are of same facts then the second complaint will not be encouraged. When a Magistrate conducts an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses the complaint on merits, a second complaint on the same facts cannot be made unless there are very exceptional circumstances. In case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh it was held that only in case of special complaint, second compliant can be made but this complaint does not include any special circumstances, thus it not maintainable. The amount deposited by the appellants shall now be returned to them along with any interest accrued thereon.

“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.”

View/Download Judgement: SAMTA NAIDU & ANR. V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR

– Vishal Varma

#VishalVarma #CriminalProcedureCode #420IPC #Supremecourt #forgedsignature #section203