Samta Naidu Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

02 March 2020
Supreme Court
Download

SAMTA NAIDU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000367-000368 / 2020
Diary number: 16800 / 2019
Advocates: Pai Amit Vs

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.367-368 OF 2020

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2019)

SAMTA NAIDU & ANR. …Appellants

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated

12.02.2019 passed by the High Court1 in Criminal Revision No.2996 of

2015 and Criminal Revision No. 2556 of 2016.

3. One G. S. Naidu, who owned a Maruti-800 vehicle of 1995 make,

passed away on 12.12.2001 leaving behind his widow, three sons and a

1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench, Jabalpur

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

daughter (who was unmarried and has since then passed away). His second

son (Complainant in the present matter) filed a complaint against his

brother (the third son of G. S. Naidu) and his wife, submitting as under:-

“3. It is submitted that the father of the

complainant namely Late G.S. Naidu passed

away on 12.12.2001. A copy of the death

certificate in this regard is enclosed herewith as

Annexure A/1 with this complaint.

4. It is submitted that on 2.11.2010, the

aforesaid vehicle has been sold by the respondent

by putting forged signatures of the complainant’s

father on the Form 29 and 30 and also put forged

signature on the affidavit annexed with Form

No.29 and 30 knowing fully well that Late G.S.

Naidu has passed away on 12.12.2001. A true

copy of Form No.29 and 30 and the affidavit is

being filed herewith as Annexure A/2. It is

submitted that on the date when the vehicle was

sold which was being owned by G.S. Naidu, the

father of the complainant was no more.

5. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and

2, in order to sell the vehicle, has forged the

signature of Late G.S. Naidu knowing fully well

that he has passed away. It is also submitted that

the documents which have been forged by the

respondents have been subsequently used for

getting the benefit in the form of sale

consideration of the vehicle. The act of the

respondents squarely covers the offences

punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and

471 of the IPC and therefore, the respondents are

liable to be punished accordingly. Hence, the

present complaint is being filed before this

Hon’ble Court.”

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

4. The Complaint came up before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Jabalpur, who, by his order dated 05.07.2013 concluded as under:-

“On the basis of evidence and document

produced on behalf of complainant it appears that

no prima facie case is made out against accused

Samta Naidu and Dilip Naidu.

Hence complaint under Section 203 Criminal

Procedure Code is rejected and thereby

dismissed.”

5. The complainant being aggrieved, filed Revision before the VIII

Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. On 05.03.2014 the Counsel for the

Complainant submitted that he wished to withdraw the Revision with

liberty to file a fresh complaint on the basis of certain new facts, which

request was opposed. After perusing the record and considering the

submissions, the Revisional Court observed as under:-

“This is well settled position that new complaint

can be filed any time on the basis of new facts and

for which purposes there is no need of permission

of this Court or permission of any court. Because

revisionist does not wish to press instant revision

any more, hence instant revision is dismissed on

this ground alone. Revision Petition is thus

disposed of accordingly.”

6. Thereafter, Complaint Case No. 9226 of 2014 was preferred by the

Complainant on same allegations but relying on additional material

adverted to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of said Complaint, the material was:-

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

a) The credit note in the sum of Rs.37,500/- issued

upon request of the Appellants by the representatives of

Standard Auto Agency, Jabalpur after valuing the vehicle.

b) The fact that said amount of Rs.37,500/- was

thereafter adjusted towards purchase of a new vehicle in

the name of the first Appellant.

c) The Registration Certificate of the new vehicle

issued in the name of first Appellant.

d) Certified copies of said documents received from

the office of RTO, Jabalpur.

Based on the aforesaid documents, it was submitted that cognizance

be taken of the offences punishable under Sections 201, 409, 420, 467,

468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

7. On 02.08.2014, the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur took

cognizance in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but

rejected the Complaint with respect to other offences, which order was

challenged by the Complainant by preferring Criminal Revision No.288

of 2014. Said Revision was allowed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge,

Jabalpur, by his order dated 02.11.2015 directing the Magistrate to

reconsider the documents available on record and to pass appropriate

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

order for taking cognizance in regard to appropriate offences. This order

was challenged by the Appellants by filing Criminal Revision No.2996 of

2015 in the High Court.

8. During the pendency of the aforesaid Revision in the High Court,

the matter was taken up and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur

took cognizance of all offences alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the

Additional Sessions Judge – X by his order dated 20.09.2016 framed

charges against the Appellants in respect of offences punishable under

Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. This order led to the

filing of Criminal Revision No.2556 of 2016 by the Appellants in the High

Court. Both the aforesaid Criminal Revisions were heard together by the

High Court.

9. On the question, whether the second complaint was maintainable or

not, the High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Pramatha

Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2 and observed:-

“12. However, in the context of the instant case,

when we compare the two complaints, it is obvious

that at the time of filing the first complaint, the

complainant seems to be aware only of the fact that

accused persons Dilip and Samta had unilaterally

sold a car belonging to G. Shankar Naidu and

which, after his death, had become joint family

property. The complainant seems to have acquired

2 AIR 1962 SC 876 = (1962) Supp 2 SCR 297

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

the knowledge of details of the transaction later.

Therefore, subsequent complaint provides the

particulars of the transaction in far greater details.”

The High Court, thus, found no infirmity warranting interference

and dismissed both the Revision Petitions.

10. While issuing notice in the present matters this Court directed the

Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand

Only) in the Registry of this Court within two weeks. Said sum stands

deposited in the Registry. This direction was passed so that if any of the

heirs of G. S. Naidu felt that his share in the property left behind by the

deceased was not being given to him, the internal disputes/difference

between the members of the family could be sorted out. But such

suggestions were not acceptable to the Complainant.

11. The parties thereafter exchanged pleadings and the matter was

heard. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Advocate, appeared in

support of the Appeal. Relying on the decision of this Court in Taluqdar2,

he submitted that the High Court was in error in rejecting the Revision

Applications. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate for the

respondent-complainant also relied upon the same decision and other

decisions referred to by the High Court, to submit that as new material

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

was found, the second Complaint was rightly considered and taken

cognizance of.

12. The principal decision relied upon by both sides is one rendered by

a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Taluqdar2. Para 35 of the majority

decision authored by Kapur, J. discloses that a Complaint under Sections

467 and 471 read with Section 109 of the IPC was preferred on the

allegations that an unregistered deed of agreement purportedly executed

on 19.01.1948, a transfer deed in respect of 1000 shares purportedly

executed on 05.02.1951 and the minutes of proceedings of the Board

meetings purporting to bear the signature of late Sri Nalini Ranjan Sarkar

were stated to have been forged. The Chief Presidency Magistrate

dismissed the complaint against which Revision was preferred before the

High Court of Calcutta. Said Revision Petition was dismissed and the

matter was carried before this Court but the Appeal was dismissed as

withdrawn. Thereafter, another complaint was brought under very same

Sections. The Chief Presidency Magistrate took cognizance of second

Complaint against which order, Revision was preferred in the High Court

of Calcutta. The matter came up before the Division Bench and the

additional material projected in support of the submission that the second

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Complaint was maintainable was dealt with by the Division Bench. The

matter in that behalf was adverted to this Court as under:-

“In regard to the filing of a second complaint it held

that a fresh complaint could be entertained after the

dismissal of previous complaint under Section 203

Criminal Procedure Code when there was manifest

error or manifest miscarriage of justice or when

fresh evidence was forthcoming. The Bench was of

the opinion that the fact in regard to the City

Telephone Exchange was a new matter and because

Pramode Ranjan Sarkar was not permitted to take a

photostat copy of the minutes-book, it was possible

that his attention was not drawn to the City

Telephone Exchange which was not in existence at

the relevant time and that there was sufficient

reason for Pramode Ranjan Sarkar for not

mentioning the matter of City Exchange in his

complaint. It also held that the previous Chief

Presidency Magistrate Mr Chakraborty had

altogether ignored the evidence of a large number

of witnesses who were competent to prove the

handwriting and signature of N.R. Sarkar and he

had no good reasons for not accepting their

evidence. It could not be said therefore that there

was a judicial enquiry of the matter before the

previous Chief Presidency Magistrate; the decision

was rather arbitrary and so resulted in manifest

miscarriage of justice. The Court was of the opinion

therefore that there was no reason to differ from the

finding of the Chief Presidency Magistrate Mr

Bijoyesh Mukerjee and that there was a prima facie

case against the appellants.”

12.1 The issue was considered by the majority judgment of this Court

as under:-

“48. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure the

subject of “Complaints to Magistrates” is dealt with

in Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The provisions relevant for the purpose of this case

are Sections 200, 202 and 203. Section 200 deals

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

with examination of complainants and Sections

202, 203 and 204 with the powers of the Magistrate

in regard to the dismissal of complaint or the issuing

of process. The scope and extent of Sections 202

and 203 were laid down in Vadilal Panchal v.

Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker3. The scope of

enquiry under Section 202 is limited to finding out

the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to

determine whether process should issue or not and

Section 203 lays down what materials are to be

considered for the purpose. Under Section 203

Criminal Procedure Code the judgment which the

Magistrate has to form must be based on the

statements of the complainant and of his witnesses

and the result of the investigation or enquiry if any.

He must apply his mind to the materials and form

his judgment whether or not there is sufficient

ground for proceeding. Therefore if he has not

misdirected himself as to the scope of the enquiry

made under Section 202, of the Criminal Procedure

Code, and has judicially applied his mind to the

material before him and then proceeds to make his

order it cannot be said that he has acted erroneously.

An order of dismissal under Section 203, of the

Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the

entertainment of a second complaint on the same

facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional

circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was

passed on an incomplete record or on a

misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or

it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where

new facts which could not, with reasonable

diligence, have been brought on the record in the

previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot

be said to be in the interests of justice that after a

decision has been given against the complainant

upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other

person should be given another opportunity to have

his complaint enquired into. Allah Ditto v. Karam

Baksh4; Ram Narain Chaubey v. Panachand Jain5;

Hansabai Sayaji Payagude v. Ananda Ganuji

3 AIR 1960 SC 1113 4 AIR 1930 Lah 879 5 AIR 1949 Pat 256

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Payagude6 Doraisami v. Subramania7. In regard to

the adducing of new facts for the bringing of a fresh

complaint the Special Bench in the judgment under

appeal did not accept the view of the Bombay High

Court or the Patna High Court in the cases above

quoted and adopted the opinion of Maclean, C.J. in

Queen Empress v. Dolegobinda Das8 affirmed by a

Full Bench in Dwarka Nath Mandal v. Benimadhas

Banerji9. It held therefore that a fresh complaint can

be entertained where there is manifest error, or

manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order

or when fresh evidence is forthcoming.”

12.2 It was observed in para 50 as under:-

“50. Taking first the question of fresh evidence,

the view of some of the High Courts that it should

be such that it could not with reasonable diligence

have been adduced is, in our opinion, a correct view

of the law. It cannot be the law that the complainant

may first place before the Magistrate some of the

facts and evidence in his possession and if he fails

he can then adduce some more evidence and so on.

That in our opinion, is not a correct view of the

law.”

12.3 The majority judgment thus accepted the challenge, allowed the

Appeal and dismissed the Complaint with following observations:-

“61. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion

that the bringing of the fresh complaint is a gross

abuse of the process of the Court and is not with the

object of furthering the interests of justice.

… … …

6 AIR 1949 Bom 384 7 AIR 1918 Mad 484 8 ILR 28 Cal 211 9 ILR 28 Cal 652 (FB)

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

63. For these reasons we allow the appeals, set

aside the order of the High Court and of the learned

Chief Presidency Magistrate and dismiss the

complaint.”

12.4 The dissenting opinion was expressed by S.K. Das, J.

13. The law declared in Taluqdar2 has consistently been followed, for

instance, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh10 it was observed:

“It is now well settled that a second complaint can lie only on fresh facts

or even on the previous facts only if a special case is made out”. The view

taken in Bindeshwari10 was followed in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and

another vs. S.N. Thakur and another11.

13.1 In Jatinder Singh and Others vs. Ranjit Kaur12 the issue was

whether the first complaint having been dismissed for default, could the

second complaint be maintained. The matter was considered as under:-

“9. There is no provision in the Code or in any other

statute which debars a complainant from preferring a

second complaint on the same allegations if the first

complaint did not result in a conviction or acquittal or

even discharge. Section 300 of the Code, which debars

a second trial, has taken care to explain that “the

dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the

accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this

section”. However, when a Magistrate conducts an

10 (1997) 1 SCC 57 11 (1986) 2 SCC 709 12 (2001) 2 SCC 570

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses

the complaint on merits, a second complaint on the

same facts cannot be made unless there are very

exceptional circumstances. Even so, a second

complaint is permissible depending upon how the

complaint happened to be dismissed at the first

instance.

… … …

12. 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.

There appeared a difference of opinion earlier as to

whether a second complaint could have been filed

when the dismissal was under Section 203. The

controversy was settled by this Court in Pramatha

Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2. A majority of

Judges of the three-Judge Bench held thus:

“An order of dismissal under Section 203,

Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar

to the entertainment of a second complaint on

the same facts but it will be entertained only in

exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the

previous order as passed on an incomplete

record or on a misunderstanding of the nature

of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd,

unjust or foolish or where new facts which

could not, with reasonable diligence, have

been brought on the record in the previous

proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be

said to be in the interest of justice that after a

decision has been given against the complaint

upon a full consideration of his case, he or any

other person should be given another

opportunity to have his complaint inquired

into.”

S.K. Das, J. (as he then was) while dissenting from the

said majority view had taken the stand that right of a

complainant to file a second complaint would not be

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

inhibited even by such considerations. But at any rate

the majority view is that the second complaint would

be maintainable if the dismissal of the first complaint

was not on merits.”

(Emphasis supplied)

13.2. In Ranvir Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another13 the issue was

set out in para 23 of the decision and the discussion that followed thereafter

was as under:-

“23. In the instant case, the question is narrowed down

further as to whether such a second complaint would

be maintainable when the earlier one had not been

dismissed on merits, but for the failure of the

complainant to put in the process fees for effecting

service.

24. The answer has been provided firstly in Pramatha

Nath Talukdar case2, wherein this Court had held that

even if a complaint was dismissed under Section 203

CrPC, a second complaint would still lie under

exceptional circumstances, indicated hereinbefore. The

said view has been consistently upheld in subsequent

decisions of this Court. Of course, the question of

making a prayer for recalling the order of dismissal

would not be maintainable before the learned

Magistrate in view of Section 362 CrPC, but such is

not the case in these special leave petitions.

25. In the present cases, neither have the complaints

been dismissed on merit nor have they been dismissed

at the stage of Section 203 CrPC. On the other hand,

only on being satisfied of a prima facie case, the

learned Magistrate had issued process on the

complaint.

26. The said situation is mainly covered by the decision

of this Court in Jatinder Singh case12, wherein the

13 (2009) 9 SCC 642

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

decision in Pramatha Nath Talukdar case2 was also

taken into consideration and it was categorically

observed that in the absence of any provision in the

Code barring a second complaint being filed on the

same allegation, 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.”

13.3. In Poonam Chand Jain and Another vs. Fazru14 the issue

whether after the dismissal of the earlier complaint had attained finality,

could a second complaint be maintained on identical facts was considered

as under:-

“14. In the background of these facts, the question

which crops up for determination by this Court is

whether after an order of dismissal of complaint

attained finality, the complainant can file another

complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing

in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the

first complaint or its dismissal.

15. Almost similar questions came up for consideration

before this Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj

Ranjan Sarkar2. The majority judgment in Pramatha

Nath2 was delivered by Kapur, J. His Lordship held

that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the

Criminal Procedure Code (for short “the Code”) is,

however, no bar to the entertainment of a second

complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained

only in exceptional circumstances. This Court

explained the exceptional circumstances as:

(a) where the previous order was passed on

incomplete record, or

14 (2010) 2 SCC 631

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

(b) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the

complaint, or

absurd, unjust or foolish, or

(d) where new facts which could not, with

reasonable diligence, have been brought on the

record in the previous proceedings.

16. This Court in Pramatha Nath2 made it very clear

that interest of justice cannot permit that after a

decision has been given on a complaint upon full

consideration of the case, the complainant should be

given another opportunity to have the complaint

enquired into again. In para 50 of the judgment the

majority judgment of this Court opined that fresh

evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not

with reasonable diligence have been brought on record.

This Court very clearly held that it cannot be settled

law which permits the complainant to place some

evidence before the Magistrate which are in his

possession and then if the complaint is dismissed

adduce some more evidence. According to this Court,

such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the

law. (para 50, p. 899)

17. This question again came up for consideration

before this Court in Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur12.

There also this Court by relying on the principle in

Pramatha Nath2 held that there is no provision in the

Code or in any other statute which debars a

complainant from filing a second complaint on the

same allegation as in the first complaint. But this Court

added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under

Section 202 of the Code and dismisses a complaint on

merits a second complaint on the same facts could not

be made unless there are “exceptional circumstances”.

This Court held in para 12, if the dismissal of the first

complaint is not on merit but the dismissal is for the

default of the complainant then there is no bar in filing

a second complaint on the same facts. However, if the

dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the

Code was on merit the position will be different.

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

18. Saying so, the learned Judges in Ranjit Kaur12 held

that the controversy has been settled by this Court in

Pramatha Nath2 and quoted the observation of Kapur,

J. in para 48 of Pramatha Nath2: (AIR p. 899, para 48)

“48. … An order of dismissal under Section

203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is,

however, no bar to the entertainment of a

second complaint on the same facts but it will

be entertained only in exceptional

circumstances e.g. where the previous order

was passed on an incomplete record or on a

misunderstanding of the nature of the

complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust

or foolish or where new facts which could

not, with reasonable diligence, have been

brought on the record in the previous

proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be

said to be in the interest of justice that after a

decision has been given against the

complainant upon a full consideration of his

case, he or any other person should be given

another opportunity to have his complaint

enquired into.”

19. Again in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy15,

a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered this

question in para 19 at p. 740 of the Report. The learned

Judges of this Court held that a second complaint is not

completely barred nor is there any statutory bar in

filing a second complaint on the same facts in a case

where a previous complaint was dismissed without

assigning any reason. The Magistrate under Section

204 of the Code can take cognizance of an offence and

issue process if there is sufficient ground for

proceeding. In Mahesh Chand15 this Court relied on the

ratio in Pramatha Nath2 and held if the first complaint

had been dismissed the second complaint can be

entertained only in exceptional circumstances and

thereafter the exceptional circumstances pointed out in

Pramatha Nath2 were reiterated. Therefore, this Court

15 AIR 2003 SC 702

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

holds that the ratio in Pramatha Nath2 is still holding

the field. The same principle has been reiterated once

again by this Court in Hira Lal v. State of U.P.16 In para

14 of the judgment this Court expressly quoted the ratio

in Mahesh Chand15 discussed hereinabove.

20. Following the aforesaid principles which are more

or less settled and are holding the field since 1962 and

have been repeatedly followed by this Court, we are of

the view that the second complaint in this case was on

almost identical facts which was raised in the first

complaint and which was dismissed on merits. So the

second complaint is not maintainable. This Court finds

that the core of both the complaints is the same.

Nothing has been disclosed in the second complaint

which is substantially new and not disclosed in first

complaint. No case is made out that even after the

exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second

complaint were not within the of the first complainant.

In fact, such a case could not be made out since the

facts in both the complaints are almost identical.

Therefore, the second complaint is not covered within

exceptional circumstances explained in Pramatha

Nath2. In that view of the matter the second complaint

in the facts of this case, cannot be entertained.”

(Emphasised supplied)

13.4. In Udai Shankar Awasthi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Another17, where the earlier complaint was dismissed after the examination

of witnesses on behalf of complainant, the matter was dealt with as under:-

“47. The instant appeals are squarely covered by the

observations made in Kishan Singh18 and thus, the

proceedings must be labelled as nothing more than an

abuse of the process of the court, particularly in view

of the fact that, with respect to enact the same subject-

matter, various complaint cases had already been filed

16 (2009) 11 SCC 89 17 (2013) 2 SCC 435 18 (2010) 8 SCC 775 (Kishan Singh vs. Gurpal Singh)

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

by Respondent 2 and his brother, which were all

dismissed on merits after the examination of witnesses.

In such a fact situation, Complaint Case No. 628 of

2011 filed on 31-5-2001 was not maintainable. Thus,

the Magistrate concerned committed a grave error by

entertaining the said case, and wrongly took

cognizance and issued summons to the appellants.”

13.5. In Ravinder Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others19 the matter

was considered from the standpoint whether a frustrated litigant be

permitted to give vent to his frustration and whether a person be permitted

to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. The discussion was as

under:-

“26. While considering the issue at hand in

Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar20 this Court, after

considering its earlier judgments in Pramatha Nath

Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2, Jatinder Singh v.

Ranjit Kaur12, Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy15

and Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru21 held: (Shivshankar

Singh case20, SCC p. 136, para 18)

“18. … it is evident that the law does not

prohibit filing or entertaining of the second

complaint even on the same facts provided

the earlier complaint has been decided on the

basis of insufficient material or the order has

been passed without understanding the

nature of the complaint or the complete facts

could not be placed before the court or where

the complainant came to know certain facts

after disposal of the first complaint which

could have tilted the balance in his favour.

However, second complaint would not be

maintainable wherein the earlier complaint

19 (2013) 9 SCC 245 20 (2012) 1 SCC 130 21 (2004) 13 SCC 269

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

has been disposed of on full consideration of

the case of the complainant on merit.”

27. In Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh22 this

Court has held that it is equally true that chagrined and

frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent

to their frustration by enabling them to invoke the

jurisdiction of criminal courts in a cheap manner. In

such a fact situation, the court must not hesitate to

quash criminal proceedings.

… … …

33. The High Court has dealt with the issue involved

herein and the matter stood closed at the instance of

Respondent 1 himself. Therefore, there can be no

justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution

on that basis afresh. The inherent power of the court in

dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger

interest of administration of justice and for preventing

manifest injustice being done. Thus, it is a judicial

obligation on the court to undo a wrong in course of

administration of justice and to prevent continuation of

unnecessary judicial process. It may be so necessary to

curb the menace of criminal prosecution as an

instrument of operation of needless harassment. A

person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to

harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is

inbuilt in the inherent power of the court and the whole

idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for

which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount

duty of the court to protect an apparently innocent

person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis

of wholly untenable complaint.”

14. The application of the principles laid down in Taluqdar22 in

Jatinder Singh12 shows that “a second complaint is permissible depending

22 (1982) 1 SCC 466

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

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 Singh13 and Poonam

Chand Jain14. Para 16 of the Poonam Chand Jain14 also considered the

effect of para 50 of the majority judgment in Talukdar2. 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.

15. 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

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

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 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 and as such there was no need of any permission from the

Court. The Revisional Court was definitely referring to the law laid down

by this Court on the basis of the principles in Taluqdar2. Thereafter a

complaint with new material in the form of a credit note and Registration

Certificate was filed. The core allegations, however, remained the same.

The only difference was that the second complaint referred to additional

material in support of the basic allegations. Again, in terms of principle laid

down in para 50 of Taluqdar2 as amplified in para 16 in Poonam Chand

Jain14, nothing was stated as to why said additional material could not be

obtained with reasonable diligence.

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

16. Reliance was, however, placed by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned

Senior Advocate, on para 18 of the decision of this Court in Shivshankar

Singh20. In that case a Protest Petition was filed by the complainant even

before a final report was filed by the police. While said Protest Petition

was pending consideration, the final report was filed, whereafter second

Protest Petition was filed. Challenge raised by the accused that the second

Protest Petition was not maintainable, was accepted by the High Court. In

the light of these facts the matter came to be considered by this Court as

under:-

“7. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant has submitted that the High Court

failed to appreciate that the so-called first protest

petition having been filed prior to the filing of the final

report was not maintainable and just has to be ignored.

The learned Magistrate rightly did not proceed on the

basis of the said protest petition and it remained merely

a document in the file. The second petition was the only

protest petition which could be entertained as it had

been filed subsequent to the filing of the final

report…......

18. Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit

filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on

the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been

decided on the basis of insufficient material or the

order has been passed without understanding the nature

of the complaint or the complete facts could not be

placed before the court or where the complainant came

to know certain facts after disposal of the first

complaint which could have tilted the balance in his

favour. However, the second complaint would not be

maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been

disposed of on full consideration of the case of the

complainant on merit.

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

19. The protest petition can always be treated as a

complaint and proceeded with in terms of Chapter XV

CrPC. Therefore, in case there is no bar to entertain a

second complaint on the same facts, in exceptional

circumstances, the second protest petition can also

similarly be entertained only under exceptional

circumstances. In case the first protest petition has been

filed without furnishing the full facts/particulars

necessary to decide the case, and prior to its

entertainment by the court, a fresh protest petition is

filed giving full details, we fail to understand as to why

it should not be maintainable.”

(Emphasis supplied)

17. As against the facts in Shivshankar20, the present case stands on a

different footing. There was no legal infirmity in the first complaint filed

in the present matter. The complaint was filed more than a year after the

sale of the vehicle which meant the complainant had reasonable time at his

disposal. 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

completely covered by the decision of this Court in Taluqdar2 as explained

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020 Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

in Jatinder Singh12 and Poonam Chand Jain14. The High Court was thus

not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable.

18. In the aforesaid premises, we allow these appeals, set aside the

decision of the High Court and dismiss Complaint Case No.9226 of 2014

as not being maintainable. The amount deposited by the appellants shall

now be returned to them along with any interest accrued thereon.

…………………………J.

[Uday Umesh Lalit]

…………………………J.

[Vineet Saran]

New Delhi;

March 02, 2020.