BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- In this instance, the complainant brought charges against the defendants under Sections 4v99 and 500 of the IPC, among other things. The Magistrate rejected this because there was no evidence to support the claim. After all, it fell under the Fourth exemption of Section 499 of the IPC. The complainant sought a Criminal Revision before the Madras High Court to contest this dismissal ruling, but it was later withdrawn.
- Later, he presented the Magistrate with a second complaint that had the same allegations as the first. He claimed that he had submitted a second complaint “as per the decision of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court” in this case. It appears that the Magistrate acknowledged this allegation and summoned the defendant. The High Court dismissed the suit when the accused contested the summoning order there.
LEGAL ISSUE
Does how the first complaint was dismissed affect the maintainability of the second complaint in exceptional circumstances?
OBSERVATION BY THE COURT
The appellant-complainant argued before the Supreme Court that the second complaint is not precluded by the rulings in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 Supreme Court 876) and Shivshankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2012 1 SCC 130). The bench of Justices Surya Kant and J. K. Maheshwari stated these rulings;
“Depending on how the first complaint was dismissed, the second case may be maintainable in rare circumstances. To put it another way, if the first complaint was dismissed without considering the case’s merits or on a technical ground and/or by returning a legal reasoning that can be described as perverse or absurd, and/or when the main basis of the second complaint is based on such a set of facts that were either not present at the time the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not have possibly obtained such facts at that time, an exception may be made.”
The court remarked that the Judicial Magistrate in this case was well within his jurisdictional authority to determine whether a prima facie case for summoning the accused was made out or not since the initial complaint was filed principally under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
“This essentially involves using the judicial intellect to determine whether or not the accused should be summoned. The learned Judicial Magistrate in the present case declined to serve the process to the respondents after concluding that the claims made by the appellant violated the fourth exception to Section 499 IPC. One cannot claim that such a dismissal was made without using the judicial intellect. Applying the judicial intellect and coming to the wrong decision are two different things.
Even after careful consideration, the court may still get to the wrong conclusion, and such an order is always justifiable before a higher court. Even if the aforementioned Order is overturned, the trial court nevertheless applied its judgment, and the court ruled.
The High Court ruling in the revision petition cannot be seen as allowing the appellant to file a second complaint on the same set of facts, the court added in its observation. As a result, the appeal was denied by the bench.
RATIO DECIDENDI :
The Supreme Court noted that, depending on how the first criminal complaint was dismissed, a second criminal complaint can only be maintained under rare circumstances.
JUDGEMENT
The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
By: M.sahithi
GITAM SCHOOL OF LAW
LINK TO THE JUDGEMENT – Crl. A. No. 2080-2083/2022 – D.No. 618 / 2020 29-Nov-2022