9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a second criminal complaint on the same set of facts and allegations after the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Second Criminal Complaint The primary legal question addressed was whether a second complaint in a summons case is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel, and the accused was acquitted under Section 256 of the Cr. P.C. Facts of the Case: - The first complaint was filed on 3-2-1988, alleging defamation under Sections 499/500/501/502 read with Section 34, I.P.C., due to a news item published on 8-12-1987. - The accused appeared in court on 11-7-1988, but the complainant and his counsel were absent. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the accused was acquitted. - The dismissal order was not challenged through appeal, revision, or under Section 482 of the Code, thus attaining finality. - A second complaint was filed on 18-7-1988, essentially identical to the first, except for an explanation of the non-appearance in paragraph 10. Legal Provisions and Precedents: - Section 256, Cr. P.C.: Allows for the dismissal of a complaint and acquittal of the accused if the complainant does not appear. - Section 300, Cr. P.C.: Prohibits a person from being tried again for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, but the explanation clarifies that dismissal of a complaint or discharge of the accused is not an acquittal for the purpose of this section. - Relevant Case Law: - *Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1962)*: Established that a second complaint can be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or new facts. - *Major General A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur (1986)*: Held that the Magistrate has no inherent power to restore a dismissed complaint. - *Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur (2001)*: Clarified that a second complaint is permissible if the first was dismissed for non-appearance, not on merits. - *Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy (2003)* and *Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru*: Reiterated that second complaints are permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Court's Reasoning: - The court emphasized that once a complaint is dismissed under Section 256 and the accused is acquitted, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review or recall such an order. - The only remedies available to the complainant are to file an appeal, revision, or a petition under Section 482 of the Code. - The court found that the second complaint, being a verbatim copy of the first, did not fall under any exceptional circumstances justifying its maintainability. - The court noted that the dismissal of the first complaint and the acquittal of the accused had become final as it was not challenged. Conclusion: - The second complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable as it did not meet the criteria of exceptional circumstances required for entertaining a second complaint. - The act of summoning the petitioner in the second complaint was deemed an abuse of the process of the court. - Both petitions were allowed, and the second complaints and subsequent proceedings were quashed. Final Order: The second complaints filed by respondent No. 2 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed, reaffirming that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable after the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance and the accused was acquitted under Section 256 of the Cr. P.C.
|
