Summary
The Supreme Court held that a second complaint repeating the same allegations against the same accused was not maintainable where the Magistrate had accepted a negative final report on the first complaint after considering the complainant's protest petition and hearing him, since that disposal was on merits and the core of both complaints was the same. The High Court erred in treating a second complaint as maintainable merely because the first was not dismissed after an inquiry under Section 202 or under Section 203 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether Section 300(1) CrPC barred the second complaint.
- When a protest (narazi) petition against a final report can be treated as a complaint.
- Whether, after acceptance of a negative final report on considering the protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh complaint on the same facts is maintainable.
Provisions considered
- Section 300(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The bar applies only where the person has been tried by a competent court and convicted or acquitted, with that verdict in force. The appellants had never been tried on these facts, so the plea founded on Section 300(1) failed. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- Section 2(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A complaint requires an oral or written allegation to a Magistrate that some person has committed an offence, made with a view to his taking action. A protest petition can be treated as a complaint only if it meets these requirements; the protest petition here did not, but the later petition reiterating the allegations and seeking action did. (¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18)
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973On receipt of a negative final report the Magistrate may accept it and drop proceedings, direct further investigation, inquire himself, or take cognizance on a complaint. Acceptance here, after rejecting the protest petition and hearing the complainant, was a disposal on merits in a manner known to law. (¶¶ 11, 27)
- Sections 202 and 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court rejected the High Court's view that, because the first complaint was not proceeded with under Section 202 nor dismissed under Section 203, a second complaint was necessarily open; maintainability turns on how the first complaint was disposed of. (¶¶ 19, 31)
Held
- Section 300(1) CrPC embodies the rule against double jeopardy and requires a prior trial ending in conviction or acquittal still in force; it has no application where the accused were never tried on the facts alleged. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- A narazi or protest petition against a final report may be treated as a complaint only if it satisfies Section 2(d) CrPC; the principle that a Magistrate may treat a protest petition as a complaint even after accepting the final report applies only to such a petition. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18)
- There is no absolute bar on a second complaint on the same facts, but it depends on how the first was disposed of. If the earlier disposal was on merits and in a manner known to law, a second complaint whose core is the same is not maintainable unless an exceptional case is made out, such as an order on an incomplete record or misunderstanding, a manifestly absurd or unjust order, or new facts that could not with reasonable diligence have been produced earlier. (¶¶ 10, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31)
- Acceptance of a negative final report after considering the protest petition, hearing the complainant and finding the investigation proper and the material insufficient for cognizance is a disposal on merits. The second complaint, which reproduced the first with the already-rejected grievance about the investigation, had the same core and fell within none of the exceptions, so the CJM rightly held it not maintainable. (¶¶ 27, 30, 32, 33)
- Repeated complaints by frustrated litigants cannot be maintained. (¶ 33)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge set aside; the CJM's order of 12.07.2012 restored and the complaint of 20.07.2011 rejected as not maintainable.