Second criminal complaint may proceed where prior dismissal was erroneous or new material emerges; substance prevails over label.

A second criminal complaint is not barred merely because an earlier complaint on the same allegations was dismissed under the Criminal Procedure Code; it may be entertained in exceptional cases where the earlier dismissal involved manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or genuinely new material. The complaint must be read as a whole, and where it discloses substantive offences such as forgery and use of forged documents, cognizance is not defeated simply because the pleading also refers to conspiracy. On the facts stated, prior consent was not required, and the second complaint was treated as a permissible fresh invocation of criminal process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second complaint on the same allegations can be entertained after a previous complaint has been dismissed under the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) whether the allegations in the complaint attracted the requirement of prior consent under the provision dealing with criminal conspiracy; (iii) whether the second complaint in the facts of the case ought to have been entertained.

Issue (i): Whether a second complaint on the same allegations can be entertained after a previous complaint has been dismissed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Dismissal of a complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the same as an acquittal and does not create an absolute bar to a fresh complaint. The power to entertain a second complaint is exceptional and must be exercised with caution. Such a complaint may be entertained where the earlier order was passed on a manifest error, resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or where new facts or evidence, not reasonably available earlier, are brought forward.

Conclusion: A second complaint is maintainable in law, but only in exceptional circumstances.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations in the complaint attracted the requirement of prior consent under the provision dealing with criminal conspiracy.

Analysis: The complaint, read as a whole, disclosed not merely an allegation of conspiracy but also substantive allegations of forgery and use of forged documents, and in substance the pleading disclosed abetment by conspiracy rather than the specific offence of criminal conspiracy requiring prior consent. The presence of allegations of distinct offences not covered by the consent requirement meant that cognizance was not barred on that ground.

Conclusion: Prior consent was not necessary on the facts pleaded, and cognizance was not barred.

Issue (iii): Whether the second complaint in the facts of the case ought to have been entertained.

Analysis: The earlier dismissal was found to have suffered from manifest error and miscarriage of justice because the Magistrate had applied an incorrect standard at the preliminary stage. The later complaint also introduced material circumstances relating to the telephone exchange and the dating of the minutes, which were treated as new and relevant facts. On that basis, the second complaint was not regarded as a mere repetition but as a permissible fresh invocation of criminal process.

Conclusion: The second complaint was properly entertained and process was rightly issued.

Final Conclusion: The majority held that the fresh complaint was maintainable in the exceptional circumstances of the case and that the orders below did not call for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A second criminal complaint on the same facts is not barred merely because a prior complaint was dismissed; it may be entertained where the earlier dismissal resulted from manifest error or miscarriage of justice, or where genuinely new material is produced, and the complaint must be assessed on its substance rather than on the label of conspiracy used in the pleading.

Dissenting Opinion: S.K. Das, J. held that the second complaint was justified and that its entertainment served the interests of justice, but this view did not form the majority outcome.

---