LexMAHESH CHAND versus B. JANARDHAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MAHESH CHAND v. B. JANARDHAN AND ANR. DECEMBER 4, 2002 B [M.B. SHAH, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 200, 203 and 204- Second complaint on same facts-Cognizance of-Held: There is no statutory C bar in filing second complaint-It can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances-However, it could be dismissed if decision against complainant in previous matter has been given upon a full consideration of the matter. Appellant-complainant lodged FIR against respondent Police authorities carried out investigation. However, not being satisfied, appellant filed criminal D complaint against respondent Investigating Officer concluded that the dispute between the parties was a civil dispute and filed case disposal report before the Magistrate, which was accepted and the case was closed. Aggrieved appellant filed a protest petition which was dismissed. Appellant then filed second complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. Respondent was issued summons. Resp0ndent filed appeal for quashing the said order and the High Court held E that having regard to the police report and also the dismissal of the protest petition, a fresh complaint on the self same allegations, was barred. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that High Court erred in holding that the second F complaint was barred as there does not eXist any legal bar in filing a second complaint Respondent contended that the criminal complaint filed by appellant was verbatim reproduction of his earlier complaint and in that view of the matter unless a special case was made out, Magistrate could not have entertained G the criminal contempt and issued process. H Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: High Court was not correct in holding that the second complaint was completely barred. It is settled .law that there is no statutory bar in filing 566 MAHESH CHAND v. B. JANARDHAN [S.B. SINHA, J.) 567 a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is A dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Second complaint could ht! dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further, second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, 11amely, where the B previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature.of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the matter should have been remitted back to the C Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence bad been made out or not. Therefore, the order of High Court is set aside and matter is remitted to the Magistrate. [573-D-G) Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saro} Ranjan Sarkar, [1962) Supp. 2 SCR D 297, relied on. Muni/a/ Thakur and Ors. etc. v. Nawal Kishore Thakur and Anr., (1985) Crl.L.J. 437; The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Titilagarh v. Jayashankar Mund and Anr., (1989) Crl. L.J. 1578 and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, [ 1977) 1 SCR 125, referred to. E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1276 of2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cri. Petition No. 591 of 1999. F P.S. Narasimha, Ananga Bhattacharya and Sridhar P. for Mis. P.S.N. & Co., for the Appellant. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, K. Maruthi, Mrs. K. Radha, Mrs. Anjani.Aiyagari and Guntur Prabhakar (NP), for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J, Leave granted. . The complainant is the appellant herein. He lodged a First Information H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Report against the respondent on 19th July, 1997, alleging, inter alia, therein that a sale-deed and acknowledgment purported to have been executed by him were forged and fabricated documents and the respondent wrongfully trespassed into the lands bearing Survey Nos. l 00/l and 10 l/l situate at Serlingampaly in the District of Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh. The Forensic Science Laboratory to wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.