Supreme Court clarifies maintainability of second complaint after acceptance of negative final report: Subrata Choudhury vs. State of Assam (2024) INSC 834 (05 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 05 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 834

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a complainant file a second complaint on the same facts if the first complaint was dismissed after a negative final report was accepted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this important question in a criminal appeal. The court clarified under what circumstances a second complaint can be entertained after a Magistrate has accepted a police report stating that no offense was committed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice C.T. Ravikumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed by the second respondent on 11 November 2010, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Cachar, Silchar, alleging offenses under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The CJM forwarded the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Consequently, FIR No. 244/2010 was registered on 5 December 2010, at Dholai Police Station against the appellants.

After investigation, a final report was submitted on 28 February 2011, which was a negative report stating that no offense was found to have been committed. The complainant filed a written objection on 5 May 2011, arguing that the investigation was flawed and requesting cognizance be taken. On 6 June 2011, the CJM accepted the final report after hearing the complainant and reviewing the objection, concluding that the investigation was proper.

On 20 July 2011, the complainant filed a second complaint, with the same allegations against the same individuals, before the CJM. This was registered as C.R. No. 159 of 2011. The CJM ordered an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 19 September 2011, after recording the complainant’s initial deposition and witness statements. The appellants challenged this order in a criminal revision petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the CJM’s order on 24 May 2012, and directed the appellants to file an application regarding the maintainability of the second complaint.

Following the High Court’s direction, the CJM dismissed the second complaint on 12 July 2012, stating it was not maintainable. The complainant then filed a criminal revision petition, which was allowed by the Sessions Judge on 28 February 2013, who set aside the CJM’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration. The appellants challenged this order in the High Court, which was dismissed on 8 January 2021, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police when a complaint is made.
• Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the police report after the completion of an investigation.
• Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.: This section outlines the procedure for examining a complainant and witnesses.
• Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.: This section allows the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process and inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation.
• Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C.: This section embodies the principle of double jeopardy, stating that a person once convicted or acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offense. The section reads as follows:
  
  “300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. —(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.”
• Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.: This section defines a ‘complaint’.
• Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections pertain to criminal breach of trust, cheating, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the second complaint was not maintainable, relying on Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. They contended that the High Court failed to consider this provision, which bars a second trial for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction.
• They submitted that the second complaint was based on the same facts and allegations as the first complaint, which had been dismissed after considering the protest petition.
• The appellants cited several cases, including Shiv shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., H.S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, and Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. v. Farzu, to support their argument that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the acceptance of the final report on the first complaint did not bar the filing of a fresh complaint on the same facts.
• They contended that the objection filed against the final report should not be considered a ‘narazi’ (protest) complaint, and therefore, the second complaint was not a second complaint in the true sense.
• They further argued that even if it was considered a second protest complaint, it was still maintainable.
• The respondents relied on the decisions in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janaradhan Reddy & Anr. and Shiv shankar Singh’s case to support their arguments.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., upon considering the written objection/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Vijayalakshmi v. Vasudevan [1994] 4 SCC 656 – The Supreme Court of India. This case clarified the fundamental rule of criminal law that enables raising special pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict.
• Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. [1985] 2 SCC 537 – The Supreme Court of India. This case outlined the four courses available to a Magistrate on receipt of a negative police report.
• Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra AIR 1968 SC 117 – The Supreme Court of India. This case held that even after accepting a final report, a Magistrate can treat a protest petition as a complaint and take further action.
• Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda & Ors. 1970 (1) SCC 665 – The Supreme Court of India. This case defined the meaning of a ‘complaint’.
• Sunil Majhi v. The State AIR 1968 (Cal) 238 – Calcutta High Court. This case discussed the meaning of ‘narazi’ and when it can be treated as a fresh complaint.
• Shiv shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 130 – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the maintainability of a second complaint.
• H.S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) AIR 1980 SC 1883 – The Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the appellants to argue that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable.
• Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh AIR 1977 SC 2432 – The Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the appellants to argue that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable.
• Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. v. Farzu (2010) 2 SCC 631 – The Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the appellants to argue that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable.
• Mahesh Chand v. B. Janaradhan Reddy & Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 734 – The Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the respondents to argue that a second complaint is maintainable.
• Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2020) 5 SCC 378 – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the maintainability of a second complaint after considering various previous decisions.
• Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876 – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the circumstances under which a second complaint can be entertained.
• Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur (2001) 2 SCC 570 – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the maintainability of a second complaint after the dismissal of the first complaint.
• Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the maintainability of a second complaint when the earlier one had not been dismissed on merits.
• Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 245 – The Supreme Court of India. This case discussed the issue of repeated complaints by frustrated litigants.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.: Definition of ‘complaint’.
• Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.: Magistrate’s power to order police investigation.
• Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.: Police report after investigation.
• Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.: Examination of complainant and witnesses.
• Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.: Postponement of issue of process and inquiry.
• Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C.: Bar on second trial for the same offense.
• Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Provisions related to criminal breach of trust, cheating, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Vijayalakshmi v. Vasudevan [1994] 4 SCC 656:* The Court acknowledged this case for clarifying the principles of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict, but found it inapplicable as there was no trial in the present case.
• Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. [1985] 2 SCC 537:* The Court relied on this case to outline the courses available to a Magistrate on receipt of a negative police report.
• Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra AIR 1968 SC 117:* The Court clarified that while this case allows a Magistrate to treat a protest petition as a complaint, it is only applicable if the petition satisfies the definition of a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.
• Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda & Ors. 1970 (1) SCC 665:* The Court used this case to explain the meaning of a ‘complaint’.
• Sunil Majhi v. The State AIR 1968 (Cal) 238:* The Court referred to this case to understand the meaning of ‘narazi’ and when it can be treated as a fresh complaint.
• Shiv shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 130:* The Court used this case to discuss the maintainability of a second complaint, noting that it is not barred if the earlier complaint was decided on insufficient material or without understanding the nature of the complaint.
• H.S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) AIR 1980 SC 1883, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh AIR 1977 SC 2432, and Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. v. Farzu (2010) 2 SCC 631:* These cases were cited by the appellants, and the Court agreed with the principle that a second complaint on the same facts is generally not maintainable.
• Mahesh Chand v. B. Janaradhan Reddy & Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 734:* The Court clarified that while this case allows for a second complaint, it is subject to the condition that the first complaint was not dismissed on merits.
• Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2020) 5 SCC 378:* The Court relied heavily on this case, which consolidated the law on the maintainability of second complaints.
• Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876:* The Court referred to this case to understand the exceptional circumstances under which a second complaint can be entertained.
• Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur (2001) 2 SCC 570:* The Court used this case to understand that a second complaint is permissible if the dismissal of the first complaint was not on merits.
• Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana:* The Court relied on this case to understand that a second complaint can be filed if the first was not dismissed on merits.
• Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (2013) 9 SCC 245:* The Court used this case to reiterate that repeated complaints by frustrated litigants cannot be maintained.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the integrity of the legal process and preventing the abuse of the system. The court emphasized that once a complaint has been fully considered and dismissed on merits, it should not be reopened unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court was also mindful of the need to avoid repeated complaints by frustrated litigants, which could lead to harassment and unnecessary judicial processes.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents, with a focus on ensuring that the law is applied consistently and fairly. While factual aspects were considered, the legal framework and previous judgments played a more significant role in the court’s decision-making process.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision and restoring the order of the CJM, which had held the second complaint as not maintainable. The court reasoned that the second complaint, filed on 20 July 2011, was essentially a reproduction of the first complaint, dated 11 November 2010, with an added allegation that the investigation was not properly conducted. This allegation had already been rejected when the Magistrate accepted the final report and dismissed the protest petition.

The court emphasized that the core of both complaints was the same, and the first complaint had been dismissed on merits after full consideration. The court reiterated that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as an incomplete record or new facts that could not have been discovered earlier. In this case, no such exceptional circumstances were found.

The court also highlighted the need to prevent the abuse of the legal process by frustrated litigants who may file repeated complaints to harass others. The court found that the High Court had erred in its understanding of the settled legal position regarding the maintainability of second complaints.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “After the original complaint has been duly investigated by the police and Final Report submitted therein has been accepted by the Court in a Judicial Proceeding; therefore, in my considered view it cannot be re -opened by the means of filing of a second complaint in respect of the same facts and circumstances.”
• “…it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in favour of the complainant, or where the earlier complaint was disposed of by the Magistrate without proper application of mind.”

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which had dismissed the second complaint as not maintainable, was restored.