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 cases.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent-State. Though served, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. By way of the present application, the applicant herein has prayed for quashing of the complaint being Criminal Inquiry No. 03/2012, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadiya, District-Amreli.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval submitted that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint being M. Case No. 01/2010 on 03.12.2010, wherein, the applicant herein is arraigned as accused No. 1 for the charges under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Raval has further submitted that the said FIR being M. Case No. 01/2010 dated 03.12.2010 is pending investigation before the competent authority and that the respondent No. 2 filed a Criminal Inquiry No. 03/2012 in June-2012 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadiya, for the same offences as alleged in the FIR being M. Case No. 01/2010 dated 03.12.2010.

5. Without going into the merits of the matter, the allegations levelled in the FIR being M. Case No. 01/2010 dated 03.12.2010 and as stated in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the said complaint can be said to be identical to the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2 in the Criminal Inquiry No. 03/2012. By virtue of which, process came to be issued by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.03.2014, wherein, the process was issued qua Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant herein.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process dated 07.03.2014, the applicant herein approached this Court by filing the present application. Rule came to be issued vide order dated 11.10.2017, the said order reads thus:

“Heard learned advocate Mr. Raval for the applicant and perused the FIR which is registered as C.R. No. I-1 of 2010 with Amreli Police Station and subsequent thereto private complaint filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of Vadiya being Criminal Inquiry No. 3 of 2012.

Rule returnable on 13.12.2017. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1-State.

Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 16(C) till then qua applicant.

Direct service to respondent No. 2 through concerned Police Station is permitted. Respondent No. 2 to be served on or before 17.11.2017 and affidavit of service has to be filed by the petitioner on or before 17.11.2017, failing which ad-interim relief granted shall automatically stand vacated.”

7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and on perusal of both the complaints i.e. the first complaint being M. Case No. 01/2010 and the complaint which is impugned being Criminal Inquiry No. 03/2012, clearly the provisions arraigned in both the complaints are the same and the second complaint is filed for the same allegations as alleged in the first complaint being M. Case No. 01/2010 dated 03.12.2010.

8. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta submitted that the order impugned by which process came to be issued may be modified. In view of this Court, the order impugned is not an order which can be modified and more particularly, in view of the fact that the process which has been issued qua Section 471 against the applicant herein is subject matter of the FIR being M. Case No. 01/2010 dated 03.12.2010 and the said FIR is pending investigation.

9. It is apposite to refer to the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Poonam Chand Jain and Another vs. Fazru, AIR 2010 SC 659, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

“23. Almost similar questions came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Another vs. Saroi Ranjan Sarkar, MANU/SC/0149/1961 : AIR 1962 SC 876. The majority judgment in Pramatha Nath (supra) was delivered by Justice Kapur. His Lordshi