LexSUBRATA CHOUDHURY @ SANTOSH CHOUDHURY & ORS. versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 834 Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 4451 of 2024) 05 November 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Second respondent- complainant filed second complaint dtd. 20.07.2011, after the dismissal of the protest petition and the acceptance of the negative Final Report in the first complaint dtd. 11.11.2010, on the same set of facts/allegations against the appellants and the other accused persons contained in the first complaint – Maintainability: Held: Not maintainable – Maintainability or otherwise of the second complaint depends upon how the earlier complaint was rejected/dismissed at the first instance – 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 if the core of both the complaints is same – In the present case, the core of the first complaint dated 11.11.2010 and the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 was the same – Further, the CJM dismissed the first complaint vide order dated 06.06.2011 after accepting the Final Report, hearing the second respondent and considering the protest petition holding that the investigation did not suffer from any infirmity – Despite the said order, the second respondent did not challenge the same but, chose to file a fresh complaint/ second complaint – Decision of the Sessions Judge and the High Court interfering with the order passed by the CJM which held that second complaint was not maintainable in law, set aside – Order of the CJM restored. [Paras 27, 31, 32, 34] * Author 2 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.202, 203: Held: Merely because some of the decisions of this Court had held that when a Magistrate conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and dismissed a complaint on merits, a second complaint on the same facts would not be maintainable unless there are very exceptional circumstances, it cannot be said that in all cases where a complaint to a Magistrate was not proceeded under Section 202, Cr.P.C., and dismissed not at the stage of Section 203, Cr.P.C., a second complaint or a second protest petition would be maintainable. [Para 31] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.156(3), 2(d) – Protest petition when to be treated as a complaint u/s.2(d): Held: A ‘narazi’ viz., disapproval against a final report submitted in a case investigated by the police on a first information report registered pursuant to a complaint under Section 156(3) for investigation should be treated as a complaint only if it satisfies the requirement in law to constitute a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) – In the present case, since the narazi petition dated 05.05.2011 did not satisfy the ingredients to attract Section 2(d), it could not be treated as a complaint. [Paras 17, 18] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.300(1) – When not applicable – Maxim –“nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”: Held: No one shall be vexed twice for one and the same cause – However, in the present case, there was no conviction or acquittal of the appellants in regard to the Sections involved on the same set of facts, by a Court of competent jurisdiction – Section 300 is thus, not applicable. [Para 9] Case Law Cited Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [2020] 2 SCR 1127 : (2020) 5 SCC 378 – relied on. Vijayalakshmi v. Vasudevan (1994) 4 SCC 656; Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr [1985] 3 SCR 942 : (1985) 2 SCC 537; Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra [1967] 3 SCR 668 : AIR 1968 SC 117; Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda & Ors. [1971] 1 SCR 1 : (1970) 1 SCC 665; Sunil Majhi v. The State AIR 1968 (Cal) [2024] 12 S.C.R. 3 Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr. 238; Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr. [2011] 13 SCR 247 : (2012) 1 SCC 130; H. S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) [1981] 1 SCR 935 : AIR 1980 SC 1883; Bindeshwari Prasad Si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.