Summary
Television and print media reported the arrest of a man accused of taking money for law-college admissions. His criminal defamation complaint against the media group was dismissed by the Magistrate, who held that the reports fell within the Fourth Exception to Section 499 IPC. He withdrew his revision petition with liberty to pursue his remedies and then filed a second complaint that was virtually a replica. The Madras High Court quashed it, and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeals. Under Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Shivshankar Singh, a second complaint lies only in exceptional circumstances, such as a first dismissal without going into merits or new facts. Here the first dismissal followed application of judicial mind, even if possibly erroneous. A bare withdrawal of the revision with liberty did not permit an identical second complaint.
Issues
- Whether a second criminal defamation complaint on identical facts is maintainable after the first was dismissed on merits under Section 203 CrPC and the revision against it was withdrawn.
Provisions considered
- Sections 203 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A dismissal under Section 203 after application of judicial mind bars a second complaint on the same facts unless set aside by a superior forum; the High Court rightly quashed the replica complaint under Section 482. (¶¶ 12, 14, 16, 17)
- Sections 499 (Fourth Exception) and 500, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Magistrate dismissed the first complaint holding the publication of the arrest within the Fourth Exception; that view could be challenged only before a superior court. (¶¶ 6, 16)
Held
- A second complaint lies only in exceptional circumstances: where the first was dismissed without going into merits, on a technical ground or by perverse reasoning, or where the second rests on facts not then existing or not available to the complainant. (¶ 14)
- The Magistrate applied judicial mind in finding the allegations within the Fourth Exception to Section 499; arriving at a possibly erroneous conclusion is distinct from non-application of mind, and the remedy was before a superior court. (¶¶ 15, 16, 19)
- Withdrawal of the revision with liberty to work out remedies in law did not permit a second complaint on identical facts; the contention on onus based on Subramanian Swamy should have been pressed in that revision. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2080-2083 of 2022 dismissed, upholding the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) judgment dated 30.08.2019 quashing STC No. 45 of 2017.