Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Samta Naidu And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 367-368 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Nos. 4418-4419 of 2019)
Decided On : 02-03-2020
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 203 - Filing second complaint on dismissal or withdrawal of first complaint on ground of new facts - The new facts should be such that it could not with reasonable diligence have been adduced - No bar on second complaint unless the first complaint was dismissed on merits - Instantly no legal infirmity in the first complaint - Second complaint filed on basis of new facts relating to same basic allegations in first complaint - Why the additional material could not be obtained with reasonable diligence not stated - First complaint dismissed on merit - Second complaint not maintainable. (Para 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
One G. S. Naidu, who owned a Maruti-800 vehicle of 1995 make, passed away on 12.12.2001 leaving behind his widow, three sons and a daughter (who was unmarried and has since then passed away). His second son (Complainant in the present matter) filed a complaint against his brother (the third son of G. S. Naidu) and his wife alleging forgery in selling the car.
JMFC rejected the complaint.
The revision court allowed claimant’s application for withdrawing the complaint opining that a fresh complaint on same cause may be filed anytime on new facts.
Complainant filed fresh complaint.
The JMFC took cognizance in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but rejected the Complaint with respect to other offences, which order was challenged by the Complainant by preferring Criminal Revision. Said Revision was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing the JMFC to reconsider the documents available on record and to pass appropriate order for taking cognizance in regard to appropriate offences. This order was challenged by the Appellants by filing Criminal Revision in the High Court.
During the pendency of the aforesaid Revision in the High Court, JMFC took cognizance of all offences alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the Appellants in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. This order led to the filing of Criminal Revision by the Appellants in the High Court. Both the aforesaid Criminal Revisions were heard together by the High Court and dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Second complaint was not maintainable.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that if the initial complaint was dismissed on the merits, a subsequent complaint based on the same facts is generally not maintainable (!) (!) .
A second complaint can be filed if it is based on new facts that could not with reasonable diligence have been previously presented. However, the second complaint should not be merely a reiteration of the same core allegations with additional supporting material unless there are exceptional circumstances (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The dismissal of an initial complaint on merits constitutes a bar to filing a second complaint on the same facts, unless new and significant evidence or facts emerge that could not have been obtained earlier through reasonable diligence (!) (!) .
The law permits a second complaint if the first was dismissed on procedural grounds or due to default, but not if it was dismissed after a full consideration of the case on merit (!) (!) .
The core allegations in both complaints must differ substantially for the second to be considered maintainable. If the second complaint essentially repeats the same allegations and evidence as the first, it is likely to be dismissed as an abuse of process (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the second complaint in the case at hand was based on almost identical facts as the first, with only additional supporting material, and was therefore not maintainable (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that the purpose of these principles is to prevent abuse of the judicial process and unnecessary harassment, ensuring that complaints are based on genuine new facts or circumstances (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court allowed the appeals and dismissed the second complaint as not being maintainable, emphasizing that the earlier complaint had been decided on merits and the subsequent one did not contain substantially new or different facts (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?
JUDGMENT :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the High Court[High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench, Jabalpur] in Criminal Revision No.2996 of 2015 and Criminal Revision No. 2556 of 2016.
3. One G. S. Naidu, who owned a Maruti-800 vehicle of 1995 make, passed away on 12.12.2001 leaving behind his widow, three sons and a daughter (who was unmarried and has since then passed away). His second son (Complainant in the present matter) filed a complaint against his brother (the third son of G. S. Naidu) and his wife, submitting as under:-
"3. It is submitted that the father of the complainant namely Late G.S. Naidu passed away on 12.12.2001. A copy of the death certificate in this regard is enclosed herewith as Annexure A/1 with this complaint.
4. It is submitted that on 2.11.2010, the aforesaid vehicle has been sold by the respondent by putting forged signatures of the complainant's father on the Form 29 and 30 and also put forged signature on the affidavit annexed with Form No.29 and 30 knowing fully well that Late G.S. Naidu has passed away on 12.12.2001. A true copy of Form No.29 and 30 and the affidavit is being filed herewith as Annexure A/2. It is submitted that on the date when the vehicle was sold which was being owned by G.S. Naidu, the father of the complainant was no more.
5. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in order to sell the vehicle, has forged the signature of Late G.S. Naidu knowing fully well that he has passed away. It is also submitted that the documents which have been forged by the respondents have been subsequently used for getting the benefit in the form of sale consideration of the vehicle. The act of the respondents squarely covers the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished accordingly. Hence, the present complaint is being filed before this Hon'ble Court."
4. The Complaint came up before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, who, by his order dated 05.07.2013 concluded as under:-
"On the basis of evidence and document produced on behalf of complainant it appears that no prima facie case is made out against accused Samta Naidu and Dilip Naidu.
Hence complaint under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code is rejected and thereby dismissed."
5. The complainant being aggrieved, filed Revision before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. On 05.03.2014 the Counsel for the Complainant submitted that he wished to withdraw the Revision with liberty to file a fresh complaint on the basis of certain new facts, which request was opposed. After perusing the record and considering the submissions, the Revisional Court observed as under:-
"This is well settled position that new complaint can be filed any time on the basis of new facts and for which purposes there is no need of permission of this Court or permission of any court. Because revisionist does not wish to press instant revision any more, hence instant revision is dismissed on this ground alone. Revision Petition is thus disposed of accordingly."
6. Thereafter, Complaint Case No. 9226 of 2014 was preferred by the Complainant on same allegations but relying on additional material adverted to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of said Complaint, the material was:-
(a) The credit note in the sum of Rs.37,500/- issued upon request of the Appellants by the representatives of Standard Auto Agency, Jabalpur after valuing the vehicle.
(b) The fact that said amount of Rs.37,500/- was thereafter adjusted towards purchase of a new vehicle in the name of the first Appellant.
(c) The Registration Certificate of the new vehicle issued in the name of first Appellant.
(d) Certified copies of said documents received from the office of RTO, Jabalpur.
Based on the aforesaid documents, it was submitted that cognizance be taken of the offences punishable under Sections 201, 409, 420, 467, 468
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
