Supreme Court quashes second complaint on same facts: Samta Naidu vs State of MP (2 March 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 188

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a person file a second criminal complaint based on the same facts after the first one was dismissed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the circumstances under which a second complaint is permissible. This case involves a dispute between family members regarding the sale of a vehicle after the owner’s death. The court examined whether new evidence presented in the second complaint was sufficient to warrant a fresh trial. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran, with Justice Uday Umesh Lalit authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute within the family of the late G.S. Naidu, who passed away on 12 December 2001. G.S. Naidu owned a Maruti-800 vehicle. In 2010, his third son and his wife (the Appellants) allegedly sold the vehicle using forged signatures of G.S. Naidu on Form 29 and 30, as well as on the affidavit attached to those forms. The second son of G.S. Naidu (the Complainant) filed a complaint against the Appellants, alleging that they had committed offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The core of the complaint was that the Appellants had sold the vehicle using forged documents after the death of G.S. Naidu.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, on 5 July 2013, stating that no prima facie case was made out against the Appellants. The Complainant then filed a revision petition before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, which he later withdrew with the intention of filing a fresh complaint. The Revisional Court allowed the withdrawal, stating that a new complaint could be filed based on new facts. Subsequently, the Complainant filed a second complaint (Complaint Case No. 9226 of 2014), including additional material. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC but rejected the complaint regarding other offences. The 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, allowed a revision petition by the Complainant and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the documents. During the pendency of the revision in the High Court, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of all offences alleged in the complaint. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the Appellants under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The Appellants challenged these orders in the High Court, which dismissed their revision petitions. The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876], observing that the second complaint provided greater details of the transaction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the principles governing the maintainability of a second criminal complaint after the dismissal of the first complaint on the same facts. The relevant legal provisions include:

• Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the dismissal of a complaint by a Magistrate after considering the statements of the complainant and the evidence.
• Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections define the offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using a forged document as genuine, respectively.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that a second complaint on the same facts is permissible only under exceptional circumstances, as established in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876]. These circumstances include cases where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record, a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or where new facts, which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, have been presented.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the High Court erred in rejecting their revision applications. They relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876], contending that the second complaint was not maintainable as the core allegations in both complaints were the same.
• They submitted that the additional material presented in the second complaint was not new evidence that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence.
• The Appellants contended that the second complaint was an abuse of the process of the court and was not in the interest of justice.

Respondent-Complainant’s Arguments:

• The Complainant argued that the second complaint was rightly considered and cognizance was rightly taken because new material was found.
• The Complainant contended that the second complaint provided greater details of the transaction and was based on additional material, including a credit note and a registration certificate, which were not available at the time of the first complaint.
• The Complainant relied on the same decision of the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876] and other decisions referred to by the High Court to support the maintainability of the second complaint.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the second complaint was maintainable given that the first complaint on the same facts had been dismissed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied heavily on the principles laid down in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876], which established that a second complaint is permissible only under exceptional circumstances. The Court also followed the principles laid down in Jatinder Singh and Others vs. Ranjit Kaur [(2001) 2 SCC 570], Ranvir Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2009) 9 SCC 642], and Poonam Chand Jain and Another vs. Fazru [(2010) 2 SCC 631], which reiterated the exceptional circumstances under which a second complaint is maintainable. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from Shivshankar Singh vs. State of Bihar [(2012) 1 SCC 130], stating that there was no legal infirmity in the first complaint filed in the present matter.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a second complaint on the same facts is an abuse of the process of the court unless there are compelling reasons to justify it. The Court emphasized that the core allegations in both complaints were identical. The additional material presented in the second complaint (credit note and registration certificate) was not considered to be new evidence that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. The Court was also concerned about preventing the harassment of individuals through repeated complaints on the same facts.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal precedents and principles, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The court primarily focused on the legal principles governing the maintainability of a second complaint.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A second criminal complaint on the same facts is generally not maintainable if the first complaint was dismissed on merits.
• A second complaint can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the previous order was passed on an incomplete record, on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or where new facts, which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, have been presented.
• The core allegations in both complaints must be different for the second complaint to be considered.
• The courts must prevent the abuse of the process of law and the harassment of individuals through repeated complaints on the same facts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the amount deposited by the appellants be returned to them along with any interest accrued thereon.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second criminal complaint on the same facts is not maintainable if the first complaint was dismissed on merits, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as incomplete record, misunderstanding of complaint, absurd order, or new facts that could not have been discovered with due diligence. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [AIR 1962 SC 876] and other subsequent cases, thereby affirming the settled position of law on the maintainability of second complaints.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s decision, and dismissed the second complaint, holding that it was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the core allegations in both complaints were identical and that the additional material presented in the second complaint was not sufficient to justify a fresh trial. This decision reinforces the legal principle that a second complaint on the same facts is generally not permissible unless there are exceptional circumstances.