Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Shail Goyal vs Smt. Neelam on 31 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1064 of 2016
31st July, 2025
Smt. Shail Goyal
and Another -Applicants
Versus
Smt. Neelam
and Others -Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing and setting-aside the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1035 of 2015, Smt. Neelam and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Goyal and Another, under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
2. Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, as follows:-
That earlier respondent no. 1 had filed a complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which was numbered as Complaint 2 Case No. 1137 of 2008. She did not pursue her application after filing it since the year 2008 and she did not appear before the Court, as a result of which, the case was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution by the Court on 12.01.2010; that surprisingly enough, after a period of five years, she again filed an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the court of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, on the same set of facts.
Subsequently, summons were issued in the case. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present C-482 application before this Court.
3. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that since the first application moved by the respondent no. 1 in the year 2008 was not pursued by her and was dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution and after a lapse of five years, just to harass and victimize the applicants, respondent no. 1 filed another complaint case under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, wherein, same allegations have been made and no new facts have been made.
3
4. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that second complaint on the same fact is only allowed in exceptional circumstances such as (a) the previous order was passed on incorrect or incomplete record; (b) there was misunderstanding of the law and new facts have emerged, which could not have been reasonably presented earlier. Thus, she has argued that all these factors are missing in the present application and it is abuse of process of law.
5. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam Chand Jain and Another Vs. Fazru, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 631. Paragraph nos. 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
"14. In the background of these facts, the question which crops up for determination by this Court is whether after an order of dismissal of complaint attained finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal."
15. Almost similar questions came up for consideration before this Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar. The majority judgment in Pramatha Nath was delivered by Kapur, J. His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "the Code") is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. This Court explained the exceptional circumstances as:
(a) where the previous order was passed on incomplete record, or
(b) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or 4
(c) the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, or
(d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings."
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that when the applicant no. 2 came to know about the first complaint case filed by the respondent no. 1 in the year 2008, he requested not to pursue the same and thus for the sake of high social values and harmony, the respondent no. 1 did not press the said complaint case, which was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution; that, when again, the applicant no. 2 started misbehaving with the respondent no. 1 and her daughters and ousted her from the house, she had to file another complaint case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is a settled principle of law that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again. Reference may also be made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations in Poonam Chand Jain and Another Vs. Fazru (supra), wherein the Apex Court emphasized that fresh evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought 5 on record. Further, it was held that it cannot be settled law which permits the complainant to place some evidence before the Magistrate which are in his possession and then if the complaint is dismissed, adduce some more evidence.
9. In this case, perusal of the entire records shows that the second complaint in this case too was on almost identical facts, which was raised in the first complaint. So, the second complaint is not maintainable. This Court finds that the core and basis of both the complaints is the same. Nothing has come out in the second complaint, which is substantially new and not revealed in the first complaint. Therefore, the second complaint filed by respondent no. 2 in this case, is not covered within exceptional circumstances as explained in paragraph no. 15 of the judgment in the case of Poonam Chand Jain and Another Vs. Fazru (supra). In such view of the matter, the second complaint filed by respondent no. 2, cannot be entertained. As reiterated earlier, just to harass and victimize the applicants, respondent no. 1 filed another complaint case against the applicants, which is based on almost same allegations as were made in the first complaint case filed by respondent no. 2. As such, the first complaint case was dismissed in non-prosecution, as the same was not pursued by respondent no. 2. It clearly shows that the dispute between the parties is purely a matrimonial dispute and the second 6 time, the complaint has been filed just to create pressure upon the applicants.
10. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
11. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1035 of 2015, Smt. Neelam and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Goyal and Another, under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, is hereby quashed, qua the applicants.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 31.07.2025 Ujjwal