Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL
Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
A protest petition (also referred to as a narazi petition) is a written objection or expression of disapproval filed by a complainant against a negative final report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. following investigation of an FIR. (!) (!) (!) It challenges the final report's conclusions, often alleging improper or perfunctory investigation, and may seek rejection of the report. (!) (!) (!)
Such a petition qualifies as a "complaint" under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.—thereby enabling the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C.—only if it contains: - An oral or written allegation that a person (known or unknown) has committed an offence; - Made to a Magistrate; and - Intended to prompt action by the Magistrate (e.g., by reiterating the original allegations from the complaint that led to the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and praying for further proceedings, such as taking cognizance). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
If it merely prays for rejection of the final report without satisfying these elements, it does not constitute a complaint and cannot trigger further inquiry under Sections 200 or 202 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!) (!) Upon receipt of a negative final report, the Magistrate may: - Accept the report and reject the protest petition (as occurred here after hearing the complainant); (!) (!) - Direct further police investigation; - Conduct or direct inquiry under Section 159 Cr.P.C.; or - Treat it as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. if materials suffice. (!) (!) (!) (!)
A subsequent complaint or second protest petition on the same facts after acceptance of the final report and rejection of the protest petition is generally not maintainable, absent exceptional circumstances (e.g., incomplete record, new facts not reasonably discoverable earlier, or manifestly unjust prior order). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Here, the first protest petition (dated 05.05.2011) was rejected as not qualifying as a complaint, rendering the later filing (20.07.2011) a non-maintainable second complaint on identical facts. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. An affirmative answer to the question of law raised before the High Court as to whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’), upon considering the written objection/ protest petition and hearing complainant, a fresh complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable, by the High Court of Gauhati and the consequential confirmation of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision Petition No.101/2012, as per judgment and order dated 08.01.2021 in Criminal Revision Petition No.95/2013 is under challenge in this appeal by special leave. As per the said judgment dated 08.01.2021, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 28.02.2013 in Criminal Revision Petition No.101/2012 whereunder the order dated 12.07.2012 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar dismissing the complaint filed by the second respondent herein was set aside and case was remanded for consideration of the matter afresh for the purpose arriving
Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence – There can be no blanket bar for filing a second complaint on same set of facts – Disapproval against a final report submitted in ....
A second narazi complaint on the same facts is maintainable under exceptional circumstances, and the right of the complainant to file a narazi complaint is irrespective of whether the final report wa....
A subsequent criminal complaint based on the same facts as a previously accepted final report is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances are shown; mere acceptance of a final report does no....
The main legal point established is that a second complaint on the same allegations can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances and when the core of both complaints is not the same.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a second complaint on the same facts should be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, as per legal principles established in previous ....
A second FIR is maintainable if it involves distinct allegations not covered in a prior FIR, even if both arise from the same factual circumstance.
A second complaint for the same incident is not maintainable unless it discloses a distinct offence or presents new material, reaffirming the principle against double jeopardy.
A second complaint on identical facts is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist, as established in prior case law.
The withdrawal of a complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused, and a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action is not maintainable. The revisional court's power is limited to procedu....
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
