A second complaint on the same facts is maintainable only if the first complaint was not dismissed on merits, reaffirming the principle that repeated complaints by frustrated litigants cannot be entertained.

J U D G M E N T

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 Signature Not Verified High Court of Gauhati and the consequential Digitaly signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA D 15a :t 3e 4: :2 20 12 I4 S. T11.05 confirmation of the order of the learned Additional Reason:

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 at a finding as to whether any case for taking cognizance of the alleged offence(s) and for issuance of process has been made or not.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the captioned appeal, in succinct, are as under: -

The second respondent herein filed a complaint on

11.11.2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar and it was forwarded for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C . Consequently, on 05.12.2010, FIR No.244/2010 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’) was registered at Dholai Police Station against the appellants. On completion of the investigation, Final Report under Section 173 , Cr.P.C ., was filed before the learned Magistrate on 28.02.2011. Virtually, it was a negative report as can be seen from Annexure-P3 – Final Report No.11 of 2011 dated 28.02.2011. Aggrieved by the said Final Report, the complainant filed a written objection/narazi petition on 05.05.2011, alleging that the investigation was not conducted properly and praying for taking cognizance on it. As per order dated 06.06.2011, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) accepted the Final Report, after hearing the second respondent-complainant and considering the narazi petition, upon holding that the investigation did not suffer from any infirmity. On 20.07.2011, the second respondent filed the second complaint with the same set of allegations against the appellants and the others who were shown as accused in the first complaint, before the learned CJM alleging commission of offence under the very Sections viz., 406, 420 and 34 IPC, and the same was numbered as C.R. No.159 of 2011. On 19.09.2011, as per Annexure P-7 order, the learned CJM exercising the power under Section 202 Cr.P.C ., directed an investigation after recording the initial deposition of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned CJM dated 19.09.2011, the appellant(s)/accused preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court. As per Annexure P-8 order dated 24.05.2012, the High Court set aside the order of the learned CJM and directed the appellants herein to file an appropriate application raising the question of maintainability of the second complaint viz., C.R. No.159 of 2011.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 24.05.2012, the learned CJM considered the application filed by the appellants raising the question of maintainability of the second complaint and dismissed the second complaint holding it not maintainable in law. Against the said order of the CJM dated 12.07.2012, the second respondent- complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition N