2002 (12) TMI 595 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of filing a second criminal complaint on the same facts.
2. Circumstances under which a Magistrate can take cognizance of a second complaint.
3. Validity of the High Court's decision to bar the second complaint.

Summary:

Legality of Filing a Second Criminal Complaint on the Same Facts:
The appellant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondent alleging forgery and wrongful trespass. Dissatisfied with the police investigation, the appellant filed a criminal complaint alleging offences u/s 420, 426, 447, and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer concluded the dispute was civil, and the Magistrate accepted this report, closing the complaint. The appellant did not challenge this order. Subsequently, the appellant filed a third complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to the issuance of summons to the respondent.

Circumstances Under Which a Magistrate Can Take Cognizance of a Second Complaint:
The respondent challenged the third complaint u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the High Court held that a fresh complaint on the same allegations was barred. The appellant argued that there is no legal bar to filing a second complaint, citing precedents from the Patna and Orissa High Courts. The respondent countered that the second complaint was a verbatim reproduction of the first and should not be entertained unless a special case was made out.

Validity of the High Court's Decision to Bar the Second Complaint:
The Supreme Court referenced established legal principles, noting that a second complaint is permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or new facts that could not have been presented earlier. The Court held that the High Court erred in completely barring the second complaint. It emphasized that there is no statutory bar to filing a second complaint on the same facts, provided there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The matter was remitted back to the Magistrate to determine if a case for cognizance of the alleged offence had been made out.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.