Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) where previous order was passed on incomplete record,

(b) or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint,

(c) or 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. In paragraph No.27, the Division Bench of the Apex Court has held that:

27. Following the aforesaid principles which are more or less settled and are holding the field since 1962 and have been repeatedly followed by this Court, we are of the view that the second complaint in this case was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits. So the second complaint is not maintainable. This Court finds that the core of both the complaints is the same. Nothing has been disclosed in the second complaint which is substantially new and not disclosed in first complaint. No case is made out that even after the exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the application of the first complaint. In fact such a case could not be made out since the facts in both the complaints are almost identical. Therefore, the second complaint is not covered within exceptional circumstances explained in Pramatha Nath (supra). In that view of the matter the second complaint in the facts of this case, cannot be entertained.

28. The learned Judge after referring various decisions viz., i. Murugesan vs. Kothandam, 1969 L.W.Crl. 268, ii. Ramasubbu vs. State, 1987 L.W. Crl.79, iii. Ansari vs. Mohammed Ali, 1990 L.W. Crl.201, has held that:

The Police have filed the referred charge sheet as 'mistake of fact'. It seems the Magistrate has accepted the R.C.S. It is not the case of the respondent herein that the Magistrate has not accepted the R.Cs., filed by the Police. In such circumstances, when the Magistrate has accepted the R.C.S., the second complaint should be filed only after setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the referred charge sheet. However, the respondent herein has not taken any such action and instead had filed a second complaint which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. It has been held in the above decisions that taking cognizance in the second complaint, makes the same not maintainable. I have no hesitation to follow the said view, and as such it has to be held that the second complaint which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Wallajapet in C.C.No.274 of 1994 is not maintainable and the proceedings have to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings were quashed. Ground  II:

76. The learned senior counsel, Mr.N.R.Elango while advancing his arguments has raised the following five questions:

1. Whether the order of closure of the first complaint by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without serving of RCS Notice to the first respondent/defacto complainant is maintainable?

2. Whether the non-speaking order dated 30.10.2009 closing the second complaint in Crl.M.P.No.2145 of 2007 without assigning valid reason is maintainable?

3. Whether the petitioner/5th accused is having right to implead himself in the protest petition?

111. As held in Poonam Chand Jain and another vs. Fazru, AIR 2010 SC 659, the principles laid down in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 are settled and are holding the field since 1962 and this has been followed by several High Courts as well as the Apex Court.

112. Under the above circumstances, this Court finds that the second complaint is not maintainable as this has been filed by the first respondent/complainant on identical facts, which were raised in the first complaint in Crl.M.P.No.507 of 2007. This Court also finds that the allegations levelled against the accused persons in both the complaints are one and the same and nothing new allegations are disclosed in the second complaint. The first respondent/complainant has also miserably failed to make out the case that even after his exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the application of the first complaint. It is therefore crystal clear that the second complaint in Crl.M.P.No.2145 of 2007 in Crime No.703 of 2007 is not covered within the exceptional circumstances envisaged in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 and in view of the aforestated reasons, the second complaint cannot be entertained.