Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Second Defamation Complaint: B.R.K. Aathithan vs. Sun Group (29 November 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 673

Judges: Surya Kant, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Can a second criminal complaint be filed on the same facts if the first one was dismissed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning defamation. The Court examined whether a second complaint, mirroring a previously dismissed one, could be entertained. The judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a second complaint can be considered, emphasizing the need for finality in judicial proceedings. The bench comprised of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

In 2013, a First Information Report (FIR) No. 345/2013 was registered against the appellant, B.R.K. Aathithan, under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was filed based on allegations that the appellant had taken money from candidates by promising them admissions to law colleges. Following the registration of the FIR, the respondents, Sun Group, telecasted and published the news of the appellant’s arrest in TV and print media. The appellant, feeling defamed by these publications, filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the respondents.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the appellant’s first criminal complaint on 28 April 2015, stating that the content of the broadcast fell under the fourth exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant then filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court, which was later withdrawn on 10 June 2015, with the liberty to pursue other legal remedies. Subsequently, the appellant filed a second criminal complaint (STC 45/2017) with identical averments as the first complaint, except for an additional paragraph about the withdrawn revision petition. The Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondents in the second complaint, which led them to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court to quash the second complaint. The High Court allowed the respondent’s petition and quashed the second complaint on 30 August 2019, holding that a second complaint on the same facts was not maintainable.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with defamation. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines defamation as:

“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”

Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes the punishment for defamation.

The fourth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states that:

“It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings in a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.”

The High Court also considered Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which bars a court from reviewing its own orders.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the second complaint.
• The appellant contended that the Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind properly while dismissing the first complaint.
• The appellant relied on Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, to argue that the onus was on the respondents to establish that the appellant’s first complaint was barred by the fourth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The appellant claimed that the second complaint was maintainable because the first complaint was dismissed without proper consideration of the merits.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the second complaint was a replica of the first complaint and was therefore not maintainable.
• The respondents contended that the Judicial Magistrate had applied his mind while dismissing the first complaint, and the order was not perverse or absurd.
• The respondents argued that the appellant had withdrawn his revision petition before the High Court, and therefore, the second complaint was not maintainable.
• The respondents relied on Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to argue that the second Judicial Magistrate could not review the order of the first Judicial Magistrate.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the second criminal complaint filed by the appellant.

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

The Court held that the High Court was correct in quashing the second complaint. The Court noted that the first complaint was dismissed after the Judicial Magistrate applied his mind and found that the allegations fell under the fourth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court also stated that the second complaint was a replica of the first complaint and did not present any fresh facts or exceptional circumstances that would warrant its maintainability. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have pursued his remedies against the dismissal of the first complaint instead of filing a second complaint.

“The application of judicial mind and arriving at an erroneous conclusion are two distinct things.”

“Once a learned Magistrate applied his mind on the materials available on record and came to a conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the accused and dismissed the complaint, another Judicial Magistrate cannot hold that the earlier order passed by his predecessor is not valid, it virtually amounts to reviewing the earlier order, which is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C.”

“The second complaint also does not disclose any of the exceptional circumstances warranting the entertainment of the complaint.”

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 not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court emphasized the need for finality in judicial proceedings and the importance of not allowing a second complaint to be filed as a way to circumvent the dismissal of the first complaint. The Court also noted that the Judicial Magistrate had applied his mind while dismissing the first complaint and that the appellant should have pursued his remedies against that order instead of filing a second complaint. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the second complaint was a replica of the first complaint and did not present any fresh facts or exceptional circumstances.

Key Takeaways

• A second criminal complaint on the same facts is generally not maintainable if the first complaint was dismissed after due application of mind by the Magistrate.
• The dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) requires the Magistrate to apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
• If a complainant is aggrieved by the dismissal of their complaint, they should pursue remedies against that order instead of filing a second complaint on the same facts.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) can be invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of any court.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a second complaint on the same facts is generally not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist. The judgment clarifies that the dismissal of a complaint after due application of mind by the Magistrate bars a second complaint on the same facts. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a second complaint is not maintainable if the first complaint was dismissed after due application of mind by the Magistrate and the second complaint is a replica of the first. This reinforces the principle of finality in judicial proceedings and prevents the abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to quash the second criminal complaint. The Court emphasized that a second complaint on the same facts is generally not maintainable if the first complaint was dismissed after due application of mind by the Magistrate. This judgment reinforces the principle of finality in judicial proceedings and prevents the abuse of the process of the court.