2005 (4) TMI 641 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules second complaint on same facts not maintainable after dismissal & acquittal.

Jitender Bajaj Versus State (U.T. Chandigarh) and Ors.

The court held that a second criminal complaint on the same facts is not maintainable after the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of a second criminal complaint on the same set of facts and allegations after the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.).Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Maintainability of the Second Criminal ComplaintThe primary legal question addressed was whether a second complaint in a summons case is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel, and the accused was acquitted under Section 256 of the Cr. P.C.Facts of the Case:- The first complaint was filed on 3-2-1988, alleging defamation under Sections 499/500/501/502 read with Section 34, I.P.C., due to a news item published on 8-12-1987.- The accused appeared in court on 11-7-1988, but the complainant and his counsel were absent. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the accused was acquitted.- The dismissal order was not challenged through appeal, revision, or under Section 482 of the Code, thus attaining finality.- A second complaint was filed on 18-7-1988, essentially identical to the first, except for an explanation of the non-appearance in paragraph 10.Legal Provisions and Precedents:- Section 256, Cr. P.C.: Allows for the dismissal of a complaint and acquittal of the accused if the complainant does not appear.- Section 300, Cr. P.C.: Prohibits a person from being tried again for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, but the explanation clarifies that dismissal of a complaint or discharge of the accused is not an acquittal for the purpose of this section.- Relevant Case Law:- *Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (1962)*: Established that a second complaint can be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or new facts.- *Major General A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur (1986)*: Held that the Magistrate has no inherent power to restore a dismissed complaint.- *Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur (2001)*: Clarified that a second complaint is permissible if the first was dismissed for non-appearance, not on merits.- *Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy (2003)* and *Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru*: Reiterated that second complaints are permissible only in exceptional circumstances.Court's Reasoning:- The court emphasized that once a complaint is dismissed under Section 256 and the accused is acquitted, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to review or recall such an order.- The only remedies available to the complainant are to file an appeal, revision, or a petition under Section 482 of the Code.- The court found that the second complaint, being a verbatim copy of the first, did not fall under any exceptional circumstances justifying its maintainability.- The court noted that the dismissal of the first complaint and the acquittal of the accused had become final as it was not challenged.Conclusion:- The second complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable as it did not meet the criteria of exceptional circumstances required for entertaining a second complaint.- The act of summoning the petitioner in the second complaint was deemed an abuse of the process of the court.- Both petitions were allowed, and the second complaints and subsequent proceedings were quashed.Final Order:The second complaints filed by respondent No. 2 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed, reaffirming that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable after the first complaint was dismissed for non-appearance and the accused was acquitted under Section 256 of the Cr. P.C.