LexJATINDER SINGH versus RANJIT KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--~ JA TINDER SINGH A v. RANJIT KAUR JANUARY 30, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B Criminal law: Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973-Sections 202, 203 and 300- Marriage with appellant who was already married-Complaint ll'ith Judicial C Magistrate-Dismissal of Complaint for default--Second complaint flied with same Magistrate-Summons issued-Validity of second complaint-Held, the second complaint is valid since the first complaint was dismissed for default and not on merits-Penal Code, 1860-Sections I 09 and 494. Respondent felt cheated after her marriage with appellant, when she D came to know that the appellant was already married and has a child from his earlier marriage. Her younger sister connived with the appellant for -~ performing the marriage between them clandestiny when the respondent was enceinte. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate against the appellant under Section 494 l.P.C. for offence of bigamy, E and against four others including her sister under Section 109 l.P.C. for offence of abetment. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default as the respondent was not present in the Court when the case was called up for hearing. Immediately, the respondent filed another complaint before the same Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and issued summons to the appellant and others mentioned in the complaint. The appellant F objected to the complaint before the Magistrate contending that the earlier complaint filed by the respondent with the same allegations was dismissed. The Magistrate overruled the objections of the appellant. The appellant filed a revision petition before Sessions Judge, which was allowed. The respondent challenged the order of the Sessions Judge by a filing a revision petition G before High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and revived the order of Magistrate. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the dismissal of first complaint, whether for default or on merits, has the same effect of 707 H 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 1 S.C.R. A exonerating the appellant of the allegations; that the second complaint is not ....,.. maintainable as the respondent suppressed the fact of first complaint. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. There is no provision in Cr. P.C. or in any other statute B which debars a complainant from preferring a second complaint on the same allegations if the first complaint did not result in a conviction or acquittal or --.,. even discharge. Section 300 Cr.P.C., which debars a second trial has taken care to explain that "the dismissal of a complaint or the discharge of an accused is not an acquittal for the purpose of this Section." However, when a C magistrate conducts an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and dismisses the complaint on merits, a second complaint on the same facts cannot be made unless there arc very exceptional circumstances. Even so, a second complaint is permissible depending upon how the complaint happened to be dismissed at the first instance. 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 D moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint on the same facts. But ifthe dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was on merits the position could be different. 1710-F-G; 711-E] 1.2. There is no force in the contention of the appellant that complainant lacked bona fides since she suppressed the fact of dismissal of the first E complaint. The second complaint was filed before the same Magistrate who dismissed the first complaint and within a short interval. Even otherwise, nothing would turn out from the mere fact that the complaint did not contain an averment that the first complaint was dismissed for default. 1712-C-DI F Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saro) Ranjan Sarkar, AIR fl9621SC876, relied on. Chandra Dea Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR (1963) SC 1430, referred to. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 121 of2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.99 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. R. No.1141 of 1999. H Ashok Saini. Rajesh K. Shanna, and Goodwill lndeevar for the Appellants. y- .IATINDER SINGH v. RAN.JIT KAUR !THOMAS. J.] 709 K.G. Bhagat and R.K. Agnihotri for the Respondent. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.