Second complaint on same facts may proceed only in exceptional circumstances, not as a routine reopening device.

A second complaint on the same facts is not automatically barred merely because an earlier complaint was dismissed. It may be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, including an incomplete record, misunderstanding of the complaint's nature, manifest error, manifest miscarriage of justice, or genuinely new facts that could not, despite reasonable diligence, have been placed earlier. The principle of finality requires caution, and repeated complaints cannot be used as a routine device to reopen matters already concluded. The operative rule is that maintainability exists only on a strict showing of exceptional grounds, not as a matter of course.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second complaint on the same allegations is maintainable after dismissal of the earlier complaint and, if so, in what circumstances.

Analysis: A second complaint on the same facts is not barred by law merely because an earlier complaint was dismissed. Such a complaint can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the earlier dismissal resulted from an incomplete record, misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, manifest error, manifest miscarriage of justice, or where new facts, despite reasonable diligence, could not have been brought on record earlier. The principle of finality requires caution, and repeated complaints cannot be used as a routine device to reopen matters already concluded.

Conclusion: A second complaint is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of course.

Ratio Decidendi: Dismissal of an earlier complaint does not create an absolute bar to a second complaint on the same facts, but the second complaint can be entertained only on showing exceptional circumstances such as manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or genuinely new facts.

---