Supplementary criminal complaint on the same allegations found prima facie impermissible; further proceedings stayed.

A second complaint styled as a supplementary complaint during the pendency of an earlier complaint on the same allegations was treated as prima facie impermissible under Section 299 CrPC where the accused had already been proceeded against on the first complaint and had appeared pursuant to earlier court directions. The Court noted that the later complaint could revive coercive steps such as search, seizure, and arrest, even though the material on record did not show abscondence. Further proceedings under the supplementary complaint were stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second or supplementary complaint could be filed during the pendency of the first complaint on the same allegations, and whether the proceedings in pursuance of such supplementary complaint were liable to be stayed.

Analysis: The petitioners had already been proceeded against on the basis of the first complaint, had approached the Court and had subsequently appeared before the investigating agency pursuant to the earlier directions. In that background, the filing of a second complaint under the nomenclature of a supplementary complaint, with resort to Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was found to be prima facie impermissible. The Court accepted the apprehension that the subsequent complaint could be used to revive coercive steps including search, seizure, and arrest, especially when the material then on record did not show abscondence by the petitioners.

Conclusion: The filing of the supplementary complaint was held to be prima facie not permissible, and further proceedings pursuant to that complaint were stayed.

---