Counter complaint rule permits a distinct version of the same incident to proceed despite an existing FIR.

A counter complaint giving a distinct version of the same incident is not barred as a second FIR merely because another FIR already exists against the same accused. The prohibition applies only to a repeated or improved complaint on the same case, not to rival versions of the occurrence. The Magistrate may direct registration and investigation of a cognizable complaint where the police decline to act, and the provisions governing investigation do not limit that threshold power. The complaint was therefore entitled to proceed as a separate counter version.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a counter complaint or rival version arising out of the same incident is barred as a second FIR; (ii) Whether the Magistrate could direct registration and investigation of the appellant's complaint under the Code.

Issue (i): Whether a counter complaint or rival version arising out of the same incident is barred as a second FIR.

Analysis: A subsequent complaint repeating or improving upon the case already under investigation against the same accused is impermissible, but that restriction does not extend to a counter complaint presenting the accused's distinct version of the same occurrence. Rival versions of the same episode may be investigated separately, and the prohibition relating to a second FIR cannot be used to defeat the right of an aggrieved person to place his version before the criminal process.

Conclusion: A counter complaint based on a different version of the same incident is not barred as an impermissible second FIR.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate could direct registration and investigation of the appellant's complaint under the Code.

Analysis: The Magistrate's power under the Code includes directing registration and investigation where the police decline to act on a cognizable complaint placed before the court. The provisions concerning investigation and statements recorded during investigation do not control the threshold power to register a counter complaint, and the earlier orders proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was justified in directing registration and investigation of the appellant's complaint.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable, and the appellant's complaint was entitled to proceed as a separate counter version of the incident.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint presenting a distinct counter version of the same incident is not prohibited merely because another FIR is already registered, and the Magistrate may direct registration and investigation of such complaint under the Code.

---