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 not bar a new complaint under certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Sinha along with Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 10.1.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint No.188 of 2017, under Sections 323 , 325, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. (Anil Singh vs. Vikas and others), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh as well as order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, by which bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2015, brothers and father of the applicant were brutally murdered by the brother and nephew of opposite party no.2 and an FIR was lodged by the applicant. After lodging the said FIR, out of retaliation, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging the FIR against the applicant and 15 other persons and in pursuance of the direction of the court, FIR was lodged at Case Crime No.344 of 2015 under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308, 324, 326 I.P.C. at Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. The investigation was concluded and final report was filed by the Investigating Officer before the court. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 moved a protest application before the Magistrate against the said FIR. After considering the objections, the Magistrate passed an order on 8.4.2017, accepting the final report submitted by the police. Against the order dated 8.4.2017, opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Revision No.111 of 2017 before the court of Sessions, which has also been dismissed on 01.08.2023. The opposite party no.2 also moved an application for further investigation before the Chief Minister of U.P., who directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to take appropriate action on the said application. The matter was inquired by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi, who had submitted a report on 27.6.2016 mentioning that final report was filed after fair investigation. The opposite party no.2 filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate on 17.11.2017 on the same very incident, which was mentioned in the FIR lodged by opposite party no.2 and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summon has been issued which is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the opposite party no.2 has filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. raising his grievance and concerned court considered the same and directed for lodging the first information report and thereafter by the order of the Court, Circle Officer investigated the matter and has submitted the final report against which, opposite party no.2 filed protest application on oath wherein he again raised the same grievance and the competent court was pleased to consider his grievance and passed the order dated 08.04.2017 thereby accepted the final report by holding that the investigation does not suffer from any infirmity, then applicant cannot file complaint on the same set of facts. He further submits that the revision filed by the opposite party No.2 against the order dated 08.04.2017 has also been dismis