Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 310 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar on 21 December, 1961

Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2024

In the circumstances, the instant matter is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Talukdar [Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 770 : 1962 Supp (2) SCR 297] as explained inJatinder Singh [Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, (2001) 2 SCC 570 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 354] and Poonam Chand Jain [Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 631 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1085] . The High Court was thus not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Bhanwarlal Sharma vs K.V.Sathyanarayanan on 4 October, 2011

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.
Madras High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 7 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

Jitender Bajaj vs State (U.T. Chandigarh) And Anr. on 25 April, 2005

"19. Keeping in view the settled legal principles, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in holding that the second complaint was completely barred. It is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr PC may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. As held in Pramatha Nath Talukdar case second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complaint in previous matter upon a full consideration of this case. Further, second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter, therefore, should have been remitted back to the learned Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence had been made out or not."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 21 - S K Mittal - Full Document

M. Murugan vs Ranjini Murugan on 10 January, 1990

6. Mr. K.A. Panchapagesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that there was no ostensible reason for the respondent not to have stated the fact about the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the second accused at Tirumalai on 13-11-1978, in the first complaint, when such a fact was admittedly within her knowledge. Replying on the observations of the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar , he contended that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court as exceptional circumstances to entertain a second complaint have not been satisfied in this case and, therefore, the trial Magistrate must have discharged the petitioner. Further, he would contend that the present complaint had been filed only after the proceedings were quashed on the previous complaint by this Court, which established that the sole aim of the respondent was to harass petitioner and the other accused. He also pointed out that Maheswaran, J., while disposing of Crl. M.P. No. 2310 of 1980 filed by the third accused, had considered the feasibility of a second complaint on the same facts. Finally, he contended that if the petitioner had already married Vimala (second accused) on 26-3-1978, there cannot be a further marriage between the same parties on 13-11-1978 and the alleged later marriage cannot be termed as 'marriage' for the purpose of Section 494, I.P.C. It is his contention that the initiation and continuance of the present proceedings were not only against law, but clearly amounted to abuse of process of Court. Per contra, Mr. G. Jawaharlal initially and later Mr. N. Natarajan contended, that the second complaint had not been filed on the same facts. The facts are different, in that the bigamous marriage alleged in C.C. No. 2175 of 1980, had taken place on 13-11-1978 at Tirumalai and had nothing to do with the bigamous marriage alleged between the parties at Tirumalai on 26-3-1978. It was submitted, that though the petitioner, who admittedly knew the marriage at Tirumalai between accused 1 and 2 on 13-11-1978 and the divorce between accused 2 and 3 on 19-8-1978, could have stated those salient facts in her earlier complaint dated 19-4-1979, the non-stating of those facts would not forbid her from prosecuting the petitioner and others in C.C. No. 2175 of 1980.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohammad Mushfik (In Fir Mushfik Urf ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 3 April, 2026

12. If the dismissal of the complaint was not on merit but on default of the complainant to be present there is no bar in the complainant moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint on the same facts. But if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merits the position could be different. There appeared a difference of opinion earlier as to whether a second complaint could have been filed when the dismissal was under Section 203. The controversy was settled by this Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, (1962) 1 Cri LJ 770. A majority of Judges of the three-Judge Bench held thus : (AIR p. 899, para 48)
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A Moin - Full Document

Samta Naidu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2020

“26. While considering the issue at hand in Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar20 this Court, after considering its earlier judgments in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2, Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur12, Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy15 and Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru21 held: (Shivshankar Singh case20, SCC p. 136, para 18) “18. … it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint 19 (2013) 9 SCC 245 20 (2012) 1 SCC 130 21 (2004) 13 SCC 269 Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 22 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury vs The State Of Assam on 5 November, 2024

12. If the dismissal of the complaint was not on merit but on default of the complainant to be present there is no bar in the complainant moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint on the same facts. But if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merits the position could be different. There appeared a difference of opinion earlier as to whether a second complaint could have been filed when the dismissal was under Section 203. The controversy was settled by this Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, (1962) 1 Cri LJ 770. A majority of Judges of the three-Judge Bench held thus: (AIR p. 899, para 48) ‘48. … An order of dismissal under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, SLP (Crl.) No.1242 of 2021 Page 22 of 40 unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interest of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint inquired into.’ (emphasis supplied) S.K. Das, J. (as he then was) while dissenting from the said majority view had taken the stand that right of a complainant to file a second complaint would not be inhibited even by such considerations. But at any rate the majority view is that the second complaint would be maintainable if the dismissal of the first complaint was not on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Smt. Snehlata vs Vireshwar Singh on 2 May, 2022

202, 203 and 204 with the powers of the Magistrate in regard to the dismissal of complaint or the issuing of process. The scope and extent of Ss. 202 and 203 were laid down in 1961(1) SCR 1 at pp.9,10: (AIR 1960 SC 1113 at pp.1116, 1117). The scope of enquiry under s. 202 is limited to finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not and s. 203 lays down what materials are to be considered for the purpose. Under s. 103 Criminal Procedure Code the judgment which the Magistrate has to form must be based on the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry if any. He must apply his mind to the materials and form his judgment whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Saleem on 9 January, 1986

Where an accused has been improperly discharged, the proper remedy for the complainant is to go up in revision against the order of charge and it is for the revisional court to decide whether the discharge is proper one or not, and in case the discharge is not justified on the material on the record, it may direct further inquiry into the matter or pass such orders as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, ft may be stated here that Gurcharan's case (supra) related to the period prior to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Paramatha Natha's case (supra). In such cases, although Section 300 Cr.PC does not specifically bar the trial of an accused on a second complaint, but the Courts should be slow in entertaining such complaint and that too, in very exceptional circumstances.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 49 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sahednnisa D/O Bakruddin vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 February, 2010

In the case of Pramatha Nath v. Saroj Ranjan AIR ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:39:12 ::: 11 1962 SC 876, in paragraphs 48 and 58 the subject is discussed. It is laid down that the order of dismissal passed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. is, however, no bar to the entertainment of second complaint on the same facts, but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances e.g. where the order is passed on an incomplete record or on mis-understanding nature of the complaint or it is manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interest of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P R Borkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next