Subrata Choudhury & Ors. v. Assam & Anr (2024 INSC 834)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SUBRATA CHOUDHURY @ SANTOSH CHOUDHURY & ORS. vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1
2024 INSC 834
(CRIMINAL APPEAL /4451/2024)

05 NOVEMBER 2024

Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar*, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

Legal Theorem: Maintainability of a Second Complaint After Acceptance of a Negative Final Report

Issue:
Whether a second complaint, filed after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in a prior complaint, and subsequent consideration of written objections/protest petitions, is maintainable under the same set of facts. No.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Maintainability of Second Complaints:
   • A second complaint on the same set of facts is generally not maintainable if the earlier complaint was dismissed on merits and in a manner recognized by law.
   • If the core allegations in both complaints are identical, the second complaint cannot proceed.
   • In the present case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) dismissed the first complaint dated 11.11.2010, after considering the protest petition and hearing the complainant, and accepted the Final Report. The second complaint, dated 20.07.2011, was deemed not maintainable.
2. Legal Basis for Protest Petitions (CrPC, 1973 – ss. 202, 203, 156(3), 2(d)):
   • A protest petition can only be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if it meets the legal requirements of a complaint.
   • In the present case, the protest petition (narazi) dated 05.05.2011 failed to meet these requirements and could not be treated as a complaint.
3. Double Jeopardy (CrPC, 1973 – s. 300(1)):
   • The maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” applies, which means no one shall be tried twice for the same cause.
   • However, this principle is not applicable here because there was no prior conviction or acquittal by a competent court on the same set of facts.
4. Courses Open to Magistrate on Receipt of a Negative Final Report (Based on Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police):
   • Accept the report and drop proceedings.
   • Direct further investigation by police.
   • Investigate personally or delegate investigation under Section 159 CrPC.
   • Take cognizance as a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC if there is sufficient material.
5. Exceptional Circumstances for Second Complaints:
   • A second complaint on the same facts may only be considered in rare and exceptional cases, provided the disposal of the first complaint does not preclude it under established legal procedures.
6. Case Observations:
   • In the current matter, the CJM, after thorough consideration, dismissed the first complaint, making the filing of a second complaint improper.
   • The appellate courts’ interference with the CJM’s decision was set aside, and the order of the CJM rejecting the second complaint was restored.

In Samta Naidu’s case this Court further, held in Paragraph 13 thus: –

“13. The application of the principles laid down in Talukdar in Jatinder Singh shows that “a second complaint is permissible depending upon how the complaint happened to be dismissed at the first instance”. It was further laid down that: (Jatinder Singh case, SCC p. 573, para 12)

“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.”

“To similar effect are the conclusions in Ranvir Singh and Poonam Chand Jain. Para 16 of Poonam Chand Jain also considered the effect of para 50 of the majority judgment in Talukdar. These cases, therefore, show that if the earlier disposal of the complaint was on merits and in a manner known to law, the second complaint on “almost identical facts” which were raised in the first complaint would not be maintainable. What has been laid down is that “if the core of both the complaints is same”, the second complaint ought not to be entertained.”

Conclusion:
A second complaint filed on identical facts, following the acceptance of a negative Final Report and dismissal of the first complaint after a protest petition, is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances justify it. The decision upholds the finality of judicial processes and prevents repetitive litigation on the same issues.

Case Law

Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [2020] 2 SCR 1127 : (2020) 5 SCC 378 – relied on.

Vijayalakshmi v. Vasudevan (1994) 4 SCC 656; Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr [1985] 3 SCR 942 : (1985) 2 SCC 537; Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra [1967] 3 SCR 668 : AIR 1968 SC 117; Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda & Ors. [1971] 1 SCR 1 : (1970) 1 SCC 665; Sunil Majhi v. The State AIR 1968 (Cal) 238; Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr. [2011] 13 SCR 247 : (2012) 1 SCC 130; H. S. Bains v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) [1981] 1 SCR 935: AIR 1980 SC 1883; Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh [1977] 1 SCR 125: AIR 1977 SC 2432; Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. v. Farzu [2010] 2 SCR 109 : (2010) 2 SCC 631; Mahesh Chand v. B. Janaradhan Reddy & Anr. [2002] Supp. 4 SCR 566 : (2003) 1 SCC 734; Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 297 : AIR 1962 SC 876; Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur [2001] 1 SCR 707 : (2001) 2 SCC 570; Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [2013] 1 SCR 243 : (2013) 9 SCC 245 – referred to.