RANVIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1063 · Decided: 01-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

4 . 
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1063 
RANVIR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
(SLP (Criminal) Nos. 670-671 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.203 - Complaint 
under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act - Dismissal 
A 
B 
of, for failure on the part of the complainant to put in process C 
for effecting service - Second complaint - Maintainability of 
- Held: Cr.P.C. does not bar filing of second complaint, if the 
first complaint did not result in conviction, acquittal or 
discharge of the accused - Second complaint would be 
·-
maintainable if first one was dismissed on account of default D 
on the part of complainant. 
The question for consideration, in the present case 
was whether second complaint on the same Issue 
between same parties would be maintainable when the 
earlier one had not been dismissed on merits, but for the 
E 
failure of the complainant to put in process fees for 
effecting service. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Even if a complaint was dismissed u/s. 
203 Cr.P.C., a second complaint would still lie under 
exceptional. circumstances. The question of making a 
prayer for recalling the order of dismissal would not be 
maintainable before the Magistrate in view of s. 362 
G 
, Cr.P .C .. But in the instant case, neither have the 
1 
complaints being dismissed on merit nor have they been 
dismissed at the stage of s. 203 Cr.P .C. On the other 
hand, only on being satisfied of a prima facie case, the 
1063 
H 
) . . 
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Magistrate had issued process on the complaint. [Para - >-
14] [1070-H; 1071-A-B] 
1.2. In the absence of any provision in Cr.P.C. barring 
,,, .. a second complaint being filed on the same allegation, 
B there would be no bar to a second complaint being filed 
on the same facts if the first complaint did not result in 
the conviction or acquittal or even discharge of the 
accused, and if the dismissal was not on merit but on 
account of a default on the part of the complainant. [Para 
c 14] [1071-C-E] 
Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 
1962 SC 876; Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur 2001 (2) SCC 
570, relied on. 
D 
Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru 2005 SCC (Cri) 190; 
Di/awar Singh v. Parvinder Singh 2005 (12) SCC 709, 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
E 
2005 sec (Cri) 190 
Referred to. 
Para 6 
2005 (12) sec 109 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
AIR 1962 SC 876 
Relied on. 
Para 14 
2001 (2) sec 570 
Relied on. 
Para 14 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISD' '.:TION : Si..P (Criminal) 670-
671 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.5.2007. of the High 
G Court of Punjab and Haryana at rhandigarh in Criminal Misc. 
6703-M of 2000 and 598-M of 2005. 
· Ranvir Singh (Petitioner-in-person.) 
M.A. Chinnasamy, T.V. George, Gautam Awasthi, 
H 
RANVIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
1065 
.( . 
Prashant Kr. Sharma and S.S. Sangwan for the Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. These Special Leave Petitions 
arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Punjab & 
B 
Haryana High Court on 31st May, 2007, dismissing two criminal 
revision cases, viz., Crl. Misc. No.6703-M of 2000 and Crl. 
r 
Misc. No.598-M of 2005 filed by the petitioner herein, who is 
t 
appearing in-person. Crl. Misc. No.6703-M of 2000 was filed 
by the petitioner herein to quash a complaint filed by Smt. Ved 
Wati, Respondent No.2 herein, on 1st July, 1999, under Section c 
420/34 l.P.C. on allegations of payment having been received 
by the petitioner to perform certain favours for the complainant's 
son-in-law by making use of his official position. Process was 
issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, Haryana, on 
l, 
the said complaint on 19th August, 1999. The said matter is 
D 
still pending before the learned Magistrate. 
2. The Crl. Misc. No.598-M of 2005 was filed by the 
petitioner for quashing another complaint filed by the said Smt. 
Ved Wati on 29th September, 2003, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 
E 
11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein 
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, issued process 
on 8th January, 2004. Both the Criminal Revision Petitions were 
taken up for hearing and disposal together by the High Court 
on 31st May, 2007, and were dismissed by a common 
F 
judgment and order, which has been assailed in these Special 
Leave Petitions. 
3. The petitioner, who app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.