2018 Supreme(SC) 712

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
OM PRAKASH SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2018 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No.387/2018)
Decided On : 11-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
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 his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit.
If the complaint shows prima facie case, proceedings cannot be quashed.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Respondent 2 and 3 selling a pathological analysis machine to appellants – Machine not functioning properly and giving inaccurate results – Respondents suggesting and selling a higher model – Higher ,model also not functioning properly – Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 420/406/384/386 r/w 34 IPC – High Court quashing the same – Thereafter manufacturer deputing a third party to look into the complaints – Service Engineer of third party giving a report certifying that some original parts of the higher model were replaced with duplicate parts making the machine functioning improperly – Second complaint made – CJM taking cognizance – High Court again quashing it on basis that first order taking cognizance under same provisions between same parties was quashed – Erroneous – There is no bar on filing second complaint – However, second complaint would not be maintainable if earlier complaint has been disposed on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit – Instantly complaint showing prima facie case against respondent nos. 2 and 3 – Quashing order taking cognizance not justified. (Para 8, 9)

       (2013) 2 SCC 435 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       On 30.05.2006, Dr. Ira Sinha, wife of appellant, purchased fully automatic Biochemistry Analyser model “Echo Plus” from M/s Logotech (India) Private Limited, of which respondent nos. 2 and 3 are Director and Technical Director respectively. The sale consideration of the said machine was Rs.7 lakhs.

       It was found out by the appellant and his wife that the Biochemistry Analyser purchased by them was not functioning properly and was showing inaccurate results due to manufacturing defect. Dr. Ira Sinha relying upon the assurance and recommendation of the officials of the Logotech, purchased a random access fully automatic analyser model “Miura200” from the Logotech in exchange of the earlier model “Echo Plus” on 25.07.2007. The sale price of “Miura200” was Rs.11 lakhs. Thus, Dr. Ira Sinha had to pay balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs extra (i.e. over and above Rs. Seven lakhs).

       Unfortunately, “Miura200” model was also not functioning properly and regular problems were being faced in the use of the said machine at the pathological clinic of Dr. Ira Sinha. The officials of the Logotech were not paying proper attention and care, though several repeated complaints were made by the purchaser.

       Dr. Ira Sinha lodged an FIR in Siwan Police Station on 24.03.2008 under Sections 420/406/384/386 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

       The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences.

       The High Court quashed the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

       As the officials of the Logotech were not resolving the issues faced in the functioning of “Miura200” model, Dr. Ira Sinha contacted the manufacturer of “Miura200” model, Logotech, Rome, Italy with her grievances. Upon direction from the manufacturer third party Service engineer/ technical representative of Key Pharma Limited found that the original parts of the machine have been replaced by duplicate parts, causing inaccurate results. The technical expert changed some of the duplicate parts with original parts. The said engineer/ technical service expert, issued a report (i.e. Service Report) dated 17.04.2012 under his signature evidencing fitting of duplicate parts of the machine in place of the original ones. Having come to know about such service report against respondent nos. 2 and 3, they started threatening the purchaser to return back the copy of the service report to them, for which the appellant and his wife refused. They even threatened with dire consequences of taking away their life. According to the appellant, respondent nos. 2 and 3 even tried to shoot them and allegedly tried to take back the service report dated 17.04.2012 from their possession. Having no other go, the appellant lodged an FIR for the offences under Sections 420/406/374/448/307/ 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

       The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. The said order of cognizance was questioned by respondent nos. 2 and 3 before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court erroneously quashed the order taking cognizance.

       Result: Appeal allowed.