Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a second criminal complaint concerning an allegedly forged vehicle sale as not maintainable. The earlier complaint had been considered on its merits and dismissed under Section 203 CrPC. The later credit note and registration documents merely supported the same core allegations, with no explanation why reasonable diligence could not have secured them earlier. The appellants’ deposit was ordered returned with accrued interest.
Issues
- When a second complaint on the same allegations can follow dismissal of an earlier complaint.
- Whether the additional documents established an exceptional basis for the second complaint here.
Held
- Dismissal under Section 203 does not create an absolute bar to a second complaint, but after merits consideration a repeat complaint requires exceptional circumstances, such as a materially defective earlier consideration or genuinely new facts unavailable despite reasonable diligence. Dismissal for default presents a different situation. (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 14)
- A complainant cannot successively add available evidence to the same basic case after an adverse merits decision. The core allegations and the diligence exercised to obtain the additional material must be examined. (¶¶ 12.2, 13.3, 14, 15, 17)
- The earlier complaint already alleged forged signatures on transfer documents and receipt of sale consideration. The second complaint’s credit note and registration certificate were supporting material only; no adequate reason explained their earlier non-production. (¶¶ 3, 6, 15, 17)
- Withdrawal of the revision did not grant unrestricted liberty to relitigate. The revisional observation about new facts referred to the governing legal exceptions. The precedent concerning a premature first protest petition was distinguishable. (¶¶ 5, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court decision set aside and Complaint Case 9226/2014 dismissed as not maintainable. Appellants’ deposited amount directed to be returned with accrued interest.