Second protest petition may be maintainable in exceptional circumstances, and a reasoned cognizance order should not be quashed technically.

A protest petition may be treated as a complaint under the criminal procedure framework, and there is no absolute bar on a second complaint or second protest petition on the same facts. It may be entertained in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the earlier petition was not decided on merits or was filed without full material, while the later petition is supported by fuller facts and evidence. A reasoned prima facie cognizance order based on witness examination and record material should not be quashed on a purely technical objection to maintainability or as vague when it shows application of mind.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second protest petition, treated as a complaint, was maintainable in the facts of the case; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing summons on the ground that the second protest petition was not maintainable and the order was vague.

Issue (i): Whether a second protest petition, treated as a complaint, was maintainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: A protest petition can be treated as a complaint and proceeded with under the criminal procedure framework. There is no absolute statutory bar to a second complaint on the same facts. Such a second proceeding is maintainable in exceptional circumstances, including where the earlier complaint was not finally considered on merits, was based on incomplete material, or the complainant later places fuller facts before the court. The first protest petition here had been filed before the final report and had not been pursued or decided, while the later petition was filed after the final report and was supported by evidence.

Conclusion: The second protest petition was maintainable in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing summons on the ground that the second protest petition was not maintainable and the order was vague.

Analysis: The Magistrate had considered the complaint material, examined witnesses, and taken note of the record of the related trial before recording a prima facie case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court interfered on a technical view without properly addressing the evidentiary basis for cognizance and without justification made adverse remarks against the Magistrate. The order of summons disclosed application of mind and was not liable to be set aside on the stated grounds.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the Magistrate's order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's quashing order was set aside, and the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing summons was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A second protest petition, treated as a complaint, may be entertained in exceptional circumstances where the earlier petition was not decided on merits or was filed without full material, and a reasoned prima facie order of cognizance should not be quashed on a purely technical view.

---