SAMTA NAIDU & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1127 · Decided: 02-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1127
SAMTA NAIDU & ANR.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 367-368 of 2020)
MARCH 02, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Second Complaint –
Maintainability of – The first complaint contained the basic
allegations that a vehicle belonging to the father of the parties,
was sold after the death of their father with forged signature – It
was alleged that by the complainant that his brother and his brother’s
wife had forged the signatures of the father on Form 29 and 30 and
that on the basis of such forged documents the benefit of “sale
consideration of the vehicle” was derived by them – The Judicial
Magistrate after considering the evidence and documents produced
held that no prima facie case was found and the complaint was
rejected – After filing the revision, the complainant sought to
withdraw the revision with further liberty to file the fresh complaint
– Thereafter, another complaint was filed on same allegations but
with additional material in support of the basic allegation – The
High court held the second complaint maintainable – On appeal,
held: The earlier complaint was dismissed after the Judicial
Magistrate found that no prima facie case was made out; the earlier
complaint was not disposed of on any technical ground, the material
adverted to in the second complaint was only in the nature of
supporting material and the material relied upon in the second
complaint was not such which could not have been procured earlier
– Pertinently, the core allegations in both the complaints were
identical – In the circumstances, the instant matter is covered by the
decision of the Supreme Court in Taluqdar as explained in Jatinder
Singh and Poonam Chand Jain – The High court was thus not
justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable – The
decision of the High Court set aside and the second complaint is
dismissed as not being maintainable.
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1127
1127
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
Held: 1. The application of the principles laid down in
Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar in Jatinder Singh
& Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur shows that “a second complaint is
permissible depending upon how the complaint happened to be
dismissed at the first instance”. It was further laid down that “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
moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint on the same
facts. But if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of
the Code was on merits the position could be different”.
To similar effect are the conclusions in Ranvir Singh and
Poonam Chand Jain. Para 16 of the Poonam Chand Jain also
considered the effect of para 50 of the majority judgment in
Talukdar. These cases, therefore, show that if the earlier disposal
of the complaint was on merits and in a manner known to law, the
second complaint on “almost identical facts” which were raised
in the first complaint would not be maintainable. What has been
laid down is that “if the core of both the complaints is same”, the
second complaint ought not to be entertained. [Para 14][1144-E-
G; 1145-A]
2. If the facts of the present matter are considered in the
light of these principles, it is clear that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in
the first complaint contained the basic allegations that the vehicle
belonging to the father was sold after the death of the father; that
signatures of the father on Form 29 and 30 were forged; that
signatures on the affidavit annexed with Form 29 and 30 were
also forged; and that on the basis of such forged documents the
benefit of “sale consideration of the vehicle” was derived by the
accused. The order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, shows that after considering the evidence
and documents produced on behalf of the complainant, no prima
facie case was found and the complaint was rejected under Section
203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The stand taken
before the Revisional Court discloses that at that stage some
new facts were said to be in possession of the complainant and as
such liberty was sought to withdraw the Revision with further
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
liberty to file a fresh complaint. The liberty was not given and it
was observed that if there were new facts, the complainant, in
law would be entitled to present a new complaint 

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