Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Second complaint on identical set of facts – Factum of FIR against appellant and his arrest was telecasted and publicised by the respondents – Complaint u/ss.499 and 500, IPC filed by appellant against respondents, dismissed by Judicial Magistrate – Revision petition filed by the appellant before High Court was dismissed as withdrawn – Appellant filed second complaint under the same provisions on same facts only adding the factum of Revision Petition and claiming that the second complaint is being filed as per the order of the High Court – Magistrate summoned the respondents, they filed petition u/s.482, Cr.PC which was allowed – On appeal, held: Second complaint can be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed – In the present case, when the first complaint was filed u/ss.499, 500, IPC, the Judicial Magistrate was well within his jurisdictional competence to find out whether a prima facie case for summoning the accused was made out or not, however, on having found that the allegations made by appellant were in the teeth of fourth exception to s.499, IPC, he declined to issue process to the respondents – Such dismissal cannot be said to be without application of judicial mind, even if erroneous in law – Appellant took a chance and challenged the said order of dismissal before High Court in Revision – No sooner the High Court expressed reluctance to entertain the Revision Petition on merits, the appellant withdrew the same to work out his remedy as available in law – Such order cannot be construed to have permitted the appellant to file a second complaint on identical set of facts – No error in the impugned judgment – Penal Code,1860 – ss.499, 500.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: There can be no quarrel that in view of the decisions of this Court in “Pramantha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar” AIR 1962 SC 876 and “Shivshankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another” (2012) 1 SCC 130, the second complaint can be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed. To say it differently, if the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on a technical ground and/or by returning a reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not have possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint. These principles, however, are not attracted to the facts circumstances of the case in hand. When the first complaint was filed primarily under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, the Judicial Magistrate was well within his jurisdictional competence to find out whether a prima facie case for summoning the accused was made out or not. This essentially involved application of judicial mind to reach a definite conclusion as to whether or not the accused be summoned. In the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate having found that the allegations made by the appellant were in the teeth of fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, he declined to issue process to the respondents. Such dismissal cannot be said to be without application of judicial mind. The application of judicial mind and arriving at an erroneous conclusion are two distinct things. The Court even after due application of mind may reach to an erroneous conclusion and such an order is always justiciable before a superior Court. Even if the said Order is set aside, it does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind. The appellant took a chance and challenged the order of dismissal of his 1st complaint before the High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition. It is apparent from the contents of the Order that no sooner the High Court expressed its reluctance to entertain the Revision Petition on merits, the appellant withdrew the same to work out his remedy as may be available in law. This Order cannot be construed to have permitted the appellant to file a second complaint on identical set of facts. The view taken by the High Court in Para No. 19 and Para No. 22 of its impugned Order, thus, appears to be the correct statement of law. Even if the order of Judicial Magistrate while dismissing the first complaint was erroneous in law, it does not amount to nonapplication of mind by the trial court. No error found in the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court. [Paras 14-17, 19 and 20][92-G-H; 93-A-G; 94-C-D]
Pramantha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 297; Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar and Another (2012) 1 SCC 130 : [2011] 13 SCR 247 – relied on.
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC
221 : [2016] 3 SCR 865 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.