LexPOONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR. versus FAZRU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 109 POONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR. v. FAZRU (Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2010) JANUARY 28, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 203 - First complaint dismissed on merits - Second complaint filed on same facts without disclosing fact of dismissal of first C complaint - Maintainability of - Held: An order of dismissal under s. 203 is no bar for entertaining a second complaint on the same facts but only in exceptional circumstances - On facts, core of both complaints was same .- Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances - In that view D of the matter, the second complaint was not maintainable. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attained finality, the complainant can file E another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: An order of dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only F in exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances may be (a) where the previous order was G passed on incomplete record (b) or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint (c) or the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or (d) where new facts which could not, with 109 H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. In the instant case, the· second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits. The core of both the complaints B was same. Nothing was disclosed in the second complaint which was substantially new and not disclosed in first complaint. No case was made out that even after the exercise of due diligence the-facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the knowledge of the c first complaint. In fact such a case could not be made out since the facts in both the complaints were almost identical. Therefore, the second complaint is not covered within exceptional circumstances. In that view of the . matter the second complaint in the facts of this case, 0 cannot be entertained. Unfortunately, the High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent. The order passed by the High Court in revision jurisdiction cannot be sustained and is quashed. E [Paras 23, 27 and 28] (116-A-C; 118-C-G] Pramatha Nath Talukdar and another v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876; Jatinder Singh and others v. Ranjit Kaur AIR 2001 SC 784; Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and another (2003) 1 SCC 734; Hirata/ and others v. F State of U.P. & others AIR 2009 SC 2380, relied on. G Case Law Reference: AIR 1962 SC 876 AIR 2001 SC 784 c2003) 1 sec 734 AIR 2009 SC 2380 relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 23 Para 24 Para 25 Para 26 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal H No. 203 of 2010. POONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR. v. FAZRU 111 From the Judgment & Order 5.2.2009 of the High Court . A of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 552 of 2000. AM. Singhvi, U.U. Lalit, Jayant Mohan, Rahul Pratap (for ·coac") for the Appellants. Khurshid Ahmed, Mehtab Ahmed, Aftab Ali Khan for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GANGULY, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Assailing the judgment of High Court dated 05.02.2009 rendered in Criminal revision No. 552/2000 this appeal was filed. 3. The main contention of the' appellants before this Court B c D is that without any colour of right the respondent herein repeatedly filed complaints on same facts and the High Court without proper appreciation of the facts an~ the legal position allowed the revision petition of the respondent and caused a E grave failure of justice. 4. The material facts are that a complaint was filed by th~ respondent in the court of judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh on or about 10.06.1992 alleging therein that the appellants who own and possess his own house at Faridabad came into F contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.