THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF SECOND COMPLAINT UNDER THE CR.P.C

This Judgment was delivered by a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal on November 5, 2024, in the Supreme Court of India. It arose out of Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 1242 of 2021 in the case of Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. vs. The State of Assam & Anr.  The case involves the Appellant, Subrata Choudhury, and the Respondent, the State of Assam. The main issue is whether a second complaint, based on the same set of facts, can be filed after a magistrate has accepted a Negative Final Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Complainant (Second Respondent) initially filed a Complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in November 2010, which led to filing of an FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After the investigation, the police filed a Negative Final Report (no evidence to proceed with charges). The Complainant objected to the report and held improper investigation allegedly, and he filed a Protest Petition. The CJM accepted the Final Report but dismissed the Protest Petition, agreeing there was no issue with the investigation. In response, the Complainant filed a Second Complaint in July 2011 based on the same facts. The CJM initially rejected the Second Complaint, declaring it not maintainable, but this order was overturned by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the case was remanded for consideration.

ISSUES

The main legal issues in this case are:

1.  Whether a fresh Complaint could be filed on the same facts after a Negative Final Report was accepted and a Protest Petition was dismissed. This raised the question of whether such a Second Complaint was maintainable under the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) bars the filing of a Second Complaint on the same facts after the acceptance of a Negative Final Report and the dismissal of a Protest Petition.

HIGH COURT

The High Court in this case upheld the decision given by the Additional Sessions Judge to treat the Second Complaint as a valid Complaint. It was considered maintainable because it was filed after the Original Complaint and Protest Petition were disposed of, and it satisfied the requirements of a Complaint as per Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. 

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

The Appellant argued that the filing of a Second Complaint based on the same facts is barred by Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. They contended that since the CJM accepted the Final Report and dismissed the Protest Petition, filing a Second Complaint violates the principle of double jeopardy as described under Section 300(1), which prohibits retrial for the same offence.

The Appellant cited previous Supreme Court judgements, which clarified that a Second Complaint on identical facts is generally not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances. They argued that since the dismissal of the first Complaint had already been decided on the same facts, entertaining a Second Complaint was improper.

The Appellant cited cases such as Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir (AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 1048) and contended that filing a Second Complaint was an attempt to misuse the legal process and harass the accused, as the Second Complaint simply reiterated the allegations of the original one.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENSIONS

The Respondent contended that there is no blanket prohibition against filing a Second Complaint, especially since the initial case did not go through a full trial or resulted in a conviction or acquittal. They emphasized that the Cr.P.C. does not specifically bar a Second Complaint under these circumstances where a case was neither tried nor resulted in conviction or acquittal.

The Respondents asserted that in the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra (1968 AIR 117, 1967 SCR (3) 668), which allows a Protest Petition to be treated as a Complaint if it satisfies Cr.P.C. requirements, a Protest Petition filed by the Complainant could be considered a fresh Complaint.

The Respondents Cited judgements like Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur (AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 784) and Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1962 SCR SUPL. (2) 297) and contended that a Second Complaint could be maintainable if new facts or exceptional circumstances justify it. They argued that the first Complaint’s dismissal was not on merit, leaving room for a Second Complaint.

SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS

In this case, the Honorable Judges discussed the various aspects of Cr.P.C. particularly regarding Complaints and Protest Petitions under the law.

The Supreme Court held that Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. deals with “Autrefois Acquit” (once acquitted, cannot be tried again for the same offence) and “Autrefois Convict” (once convicted, cannot be tried again for the same offence). The Court clarified that Section 300(1) is not applicable in this case because there was no trial, conviction, or acquittal in the case at hand. The Appellants had not been tried before any Court, and hence, they weren’t prohibited from filing a Second Complaint.

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police(1985 SCR (3) 942), where it was held that a magistrate, upon receiving a Negative Final Report, has several options: They can either;

1.  Accept the report and drop the case.

2. Direct further investigation.

3. Investigate himself or refer the investigation to another magistrate.

4. Take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the case as a private Complaint.

In this case, the CJM accepted the Final Report, which was within his powers. The Complainant’s first Complaint was considered and rejected. However, when a Second Complaint was filed, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no blanket ban on filing a Second Complaint on the same facts after the first report had been rejected.

The judgment clarified that under the Cr.P.C., a fresh Complaint based on the same set of facts can be filed after the acceptance of a Negative Final Report, provided it is handled in accordance with the legal process and the magistrate has not made a final ruling on the merits of the case.

The Court discussed the term “narazi petition” (Protest Petition) and held that a Protest Petition against a final report may be treated as a Complaint if it satisfies the essential requirements under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., which defines a Complaint. A Complaint, in this context, is defined as an oral or written allegation that an offence has been committed, made to a magistrate with a view to initiating judicial action. The Court cited several precedents and clarified the meaning of “Complaint” and “narazi petition” under the Cr.P.C. The Court referred to the case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra (supra) Even after accepting a final report, a magistrate can treat a Protest Petition as a Complaint and proceed accordingly. Again, the Court referred to Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa SamSamagouda, (70 AIR 1153, 1971 SCR (1) 1) it was held that a Complaint” need not follow any specific form but must disclose an offence.

In Sunil Majhi v. The State, (AIR 1968 CAL 238) the Court ruled that a Protest Petition may be treated as a fresh Complaint if it reaffirms the original allegations and seeks further action by the Court.

The Appellants argued that since the first Complaint had already been dismissed after considering the Protest Petition, the Second Complaint was not maintainable. However, the Second Respondent’s counsel countered this by claiming that the filing of the final report, followed by an objection, did not constitute a dismissal of the first Protest Petition and thus a Second Complaint could be filed on the same set of facts.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, which confirmed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge remanding the case for reconsideration.

LEGAL PRECEDENTS

In this Judgment, the issue revolves around the question of whether a Second Complaint can be filed after the dismissal of the first Complaint. Various Judgments are discussed to clarify this point, particularly in the context of criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). They are:

The view taken in A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur (1986 AIR 1440, 1986 SCR (2) 771) established that a Second Complaint may be maintainable under certain conditions, especially if the dismissal of the first Complaint was not on merits.

In Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, (AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 784) this case established that there is no legal bar to filing a Second Complaint based on the same allegations if the first Complaint was dismissed for reasons other than on merits, such as a default by the Complainant. However, if the dismissal was on merits, a Second Complaint is only allowed in exceptional circumstances.

In the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, (1962 AIR 876, 1962 SCR SUPL. (2) 297) this decision set the precedent that a Second Complaint is not outright prohibited if the first Complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the CrPC. The dismissal must not be on merits and must be based on exceptional circumstances, such as incomplete records, misunderstanding of facts, or new facts that were not available earlier.

The Court in the case of Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana (2009 AIR SCW 6169, 2009 (9) SCC 642) reinforces the principle that a Second Complaint can be filed even if the first was dismissed for reasons like failure to submit process fees, provided the dismissal was not on merits. However, the Second Complaint must be based on new facts or exceptional circumstances.

In this case, Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru (AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 38,), the Court emphasized that if a Second Complaint is filed on identical facts after the first Complaint has been dismissed on merits, it is generally not maintainable. A Second Complaint is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, such as if the first Complaint was dismissed without a full and fair consideration of the facts.

In the case of Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir (AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 1048, 2013 (9) SCC 245) warns against the misuse of the criminal justice system to harass others unnecessarily. A Second Complaint should not be entertained just because the Complainant is frustrated or seeking vendetta.

 

 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that filing a second complaint on the same facts after the acceptance of a negative final report is permissible only under specific conditions, such as new facts or exceptional circumstances. While the Cr.P.C. allows Protest Petitions to be treated as fresh complaints if they meet legal criteria, the Court emphasizes that this flexibility should not be misused to repeatedly reopen cases without merit. This ruling aims to balance the complainant’s right to justice with the need to prevent unwarranted litigation.

Baddam Parichaya Reddy

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services