LexPOONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR. versus FAZRU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A POONAM CHAND JAIN AND ANR. v. FAZRU OCTOBER 12, 2004 B [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 200, 202, 245 and 397: Filing of second complaint-Consideration of by the Courts-Held: C Supreme Court has already laid down the law as regards consideration of second complaint by the Courts-High Court failed to consider the legality of the order of the Courts below in the light of the settled law on the subject- Hence matter remitted to High Court to record appropriate findings. Interlocutory Order-Framing of Charge-Distinction between. Second complaint vis-a-vis exceptional circumstances-Scope of D, The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was as to whether the second complaint could be filed under the provisions ofCr.P.C. E by the complainant and the effect of dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It was contended by the appellant that the second complaint was nothing hut repetition of the averments of the first complaint and it aimed at reopening F the matters which have attained finality; that the second complaint could be entertained only on establishing exceptional circumstances; and that since the order to issue process is an interlocutory order, it was not maintainable. Respondent-complainant submitted that the second complaint did not contain the same averments as in the earlier complaint as different persons G were arrayed as accused and also alleged offences were different. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: l. It is impermissible for the Magistrate to re-consider his 525 H POONAM CHAND JAIN v. FAZRU [PASAYAT, J.] 527 ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. An interesting point is raised in this appeal as to A the effect of dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') and whether second complaint can be filed. Brief reference to the factual aspects as contended by the appellant B would suffice. Respondent-Fazru (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a complaint no.152 on I 0. 7 .1992 which was dismissed by order dated 13.1.1994 by the Judicial Magistrate, I st Class, Nuh, Haryana. On 12.2.1996 the complainant filed a revision befor"(! the Punjab and Haryana High Court which C was numbered as Criminal Revision No.43of1995. The said revision petition was dismissed by order dated 12.2.1996. Prior to the institution of a complaint 4 suits had been filed by the appellants' companies and other appellants in 1989 which were decreed by order dated 24.10.1997. In all these cases complainant-Fazru was defendant no. I .. In 1992 the complainant filed a Civil D Suit No. 90of1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nuh. The same was dismissed for default on 7.10.1997. Complainant filed the complaint which forms subject matter of present appeal on 25.11.1997. According to the appellants process was directed to be issued by the learned Magistrate o~ 9.1.1999. Such action was assailed by filing a revision. By judgment dated 9.7.1999, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, allowed the revision E and dismissed the complaint. It was, inter alia, held that protection under Section 200 of the Code was not available to the complainant. Aggrieved by said order, the complainant filed a revision petition no. 552 of2000 before the High Court. By the impugned order the High Court allowed the revision.· Learned Judge held that if the present appellants had any grievance they, F could seek review of the summoning order with a view to get discharged in view of the provision of Section 245 of the Code. In support of the appeal, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel, submitted that the second complaint was nothing but a repetition of the averments of the first complaint and was in essence a fresh attempt to re-open G the matters which have attained finality. The order of learned Additional ' Sessions Judge was justified and the High Court should not have interfered with it. It was pointed out with reference to various averments in the first 1 complaint filed on 10.7.1992 and the second one filed on 25.11.1997 that both are founded on the same allegations. The averments were merely repeated H and, therefore, no case for entertaining the second complaint was made out. 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A That being so, the issuance of process was illegal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had ri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.