9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 577 - SC - Indian LawsEffect of dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Second complaint dismissed by high Court as mere repetition - Held that - there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reason the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. But the second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances namely where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd unjust or where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceedings have been adduced. The second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further second complaint on the same facts would be entertained only in exceptional circumstances namely where previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd or unjust. Question is academic as the High Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the revision was not maintainable in view of the prescription in Section 397(2) of the Code. Undisputedly in a given case Section 482 of the Code can be pressed into service. It was held by this Court in Pramatha Nath s case (1961 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) . Further in Subramanium s case (2004 (9) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT) as noted above it was observed that issuance of process is a preliminary step in the stage of trial. - As the High Court has not considered the legality of the order directing issuance of process keeping in view the law laid down by this Court we feel it would be proper to remit the matter to the High Court to record positive findings on the relevant issues. - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Filing of a second complaint on the same facts. 3. Exceptional circumstances for entertaining a second complaint. 4. Legality of the order directing issuance of process. 5. Interlocutory nature of the order issuing process. Detailed Analysis: 1. Dismissal of a Complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The initial complaint filed by the complainant on 10.7.1992 was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate on 13.1.1994. The complainant's subsequent revision petition to the Punjab and Haryana High Court was also dismissed on 12.2.1996. This dismissal forms the basis of the legal contention regarding the permissibility of filing a second complaint. 2. Filing of a Second Complaint on the Same Facts: The complainant filed a second complaint on 25.11.1997, which was challenged by the appellants on the grounds that it was a repetition of the first complaint. The appellants argued that the second complaint was essentially an attempt to re-open matters that had already attained finality. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, allowed the revision and dismissed the second complaint, stating that protection under Section 300 of the Code was not available to the complainant. However, the High Court later allowed the revision filed by the complainant. 3. Exceptional Circumstances for Entertaining a Second Complaint: The Supreme Court examined various precedents to determine the conditions under which a second complaint can be entertained. In Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, it was held that a second complaint on the same facts can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as: - The previous order was passed on an incomplete record. - There was a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint. - The previous order was manifestly absurd, unjust, or foolish. - New facts, which could not have been brought forward with reasonable diligence in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. These principles were reiterated in subsequent cases like Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh and Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy. 4. Legality of the Order Directing Issuance of Process: The appellants contended that the issuance of process by the learned Magistrate was illegal as the second complaint did not meet the exceptional circumstances required. The High Court, however, suggested that the appellants could seek discharge under Section 245 of the Code. The Supreme Court noted that the issuance of process is a preliminary step in the trial stage and cannot be reconsidered by the Magistrate in the absence of a specific provision to recall such an order, as held in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal. 5. Interlocutory Nature of the Order Issuing Process: The Supreme Court discussed whether the order issuing process is an interlocutory order. It was noted that the framing of charges is not an interlocutory order, as it is an intermediate order essential to the progress of the trial. This distinction was highlighted in cases like Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam and K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat. The Court concluded that the High Court did not interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge's order on the ground of revision maintainability. Conclusion: The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to record positive findings on the relevant issues, particularly the legality of the order directing the issuance of process. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
