Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
BRIJ RAJ SINGH
Vishal Kumar Saroj – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko – Respondent
This judgment pertains to an application for the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. The core issue revolves around whether a subsequent criminal complaint based on the same set of facts, after the court has already accepted a final report and dismissed a protest petition, is maintainable. The court examined the distinction between a police report/closure report and a formal criminal complaint, emphasizing that acceptance of a final report does not bar the filing of a fresh complaint under Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code if the earlier proceedings were not concluded on merits or were based on incomplete or misunderstood facts (!) (!) .
The court considered the legal principles governing second complaints and protest petitions, highlighting that a second complaint on the same facts is generally not permissible if the initial complaint was fully considered and disposed of on merits. However, it recognized exceptions where the earlier order was passed on incomplete records, due to a misunderstanding, or was manifestly erroneous, allowing for a second complaint based on new or overlooked facts (!) (!) .
In the present case, the court found that the second complaint was essentially a reproduction of the first, filed after the earlier proceedings had been concluded on merits, and was based on the same core facts. The court noted that the earlier proceedings had fully considered the case, and the subsequent complaint was not founded on any new facts or circumstances. Therefore, it held that the second complaint was not maintainable and that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be unjustified (!) (!) (!) .
Based on these considerations, the court granted the application and quashed the criminal proceedings, including all related orders and warrants. It reaffirmed that the earlier dismissal on merits barred the filing of a second complaint on the same facts, and that the applicant was entitled to relief on this basis. The court also acknowledged the availability of legal remedies for the opposing party against the order dismissing the revision (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability of the complaint (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. reference to supreme court judgments on complaint maintainability (Para 6) |
| 4. opponent’s arguments regarding complaint procedures (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. ratio decidendi concerning second complaints (Para 11 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. supporting supreme court precedents (Para 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 7. final observations by the court (Para 20) |
| 8. conclusion and order of the court (Para 21 , 22) |
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.
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The provided information includes case titles, citations, and decision dates, but does not mention any subsequent judicial treatment such as overruling or reversal. Therefore, based on the available data, no cases are identified as bad law.
[Followed]
There is no explicit mention in the list that any case has been followed by subsequent courts. Without such language, we cannot categorize any case under this pattern.
[Distinguished]
The list does not contain any indication that any case was distinguished in later judgments.
[Criticized or Questioned]
No cases are noted as being criticized or questioned in the provided information.
[Decided on the same date or related]
The two cases are from different dates (24.2.2022 and 09.07.2018) and involve different case numbers, but there is no explicit mention of their treatment relative to each other.
Both cases, "State of U.P. v. Rakesh" (decided on 24.2.2022) and "Yogeshwar Raj Nagar v. State of U.P." (decided on 09.07.2018), do not include any language indicating how they have been treated in subsequent jurisprudence. Without such information, their treatment remains uncertain.
The absence of explicit treatment indicators means we cannot definitively categorize their judicial standing beyond their initial rulings.
**Source :** Vishal Kumar Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko - Allahabad
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....
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 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 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....
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.
A second complaint on the same cause of action after acceptance of a final report is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances; summoning orders must reflect judicial application of mind.
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 ....
An order summoning an accused in a criminal case is not an interlocutory order and revision is maintainable. The Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue an....
A second complaint on identical facts is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist, as established in prior case law.
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
