Sustainability of the Second Protest Petition Depends on How the First Complaint Was Rejected Against the Negative Final Report: Supreme Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court yesterday held that there is no bar to the second complaint being maintained against the negative Final Report/Charge Sheet if the judge believes that the merits of both complaints are different.

Court Samta Naidu and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. It formed a legal opinion that if the earlier disposal of the complaint had been based on merits, the second complaint regarding “virtually the same facts” raised in the first complaint would not have been maintainable.

get a hint Samta Naidu’s caseconsists of a bench Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal He explained that there was no obstacle to the evaluation of a second complaint regarding the same events, but that this complaint would only be evaluated in exceptional cases, that is, if the previous dismissal decision had any invalidity.

Noting that the decision to reject the previous complaint did not involve any disability and that the complainant did not object to the dismissal decision, the Court observed that filing the second complaint with the same set of allegations stated in the first complaint would render the second complaint invalid. -can be protected.

“The second complaint was made on 20.07.2011, and instead of repeating the complaint dated 11.11.2010, allegations that the investigation carried out based on the original complaint, which was actually made through the petition of objection dated 05.05.2011, were added. It should be noted that the claim regarding the investigation was previously rejected by the order dated 06.06.2011, on the grounds that the investigation did not contain any flaws and did not deserve an investigation. Now, when the first complaint dated 11.11.2010 is compared with the second complaint dated 20.07.2011, it appears that they contain the same allegations against the same accused as observed by the CJM in its order dated 12.07.2012..”the court observed.

Further, the Court clarified that failure to dismiss the earlier complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.PC will not in any case entitle the complainant to file a second complaint as a second complaint has been held to be unsustainable in a particular judgment. Following the dismissal of the previously filed complaint on merits. The court said it would rather depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, i.e. how the earlier complaint was dismissed/dismissed in the trial court.

“Merely because this Court has held in some of such judgments that when a Magistrate conducts an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC and dismisses a complaint on merits, a second complaint on the same facts cannot be maintained unless in very exceptional circumstances, a complaint filed with the Magistrate It is not understood that in all cases where it is not pursued under Section 202 of the Cr.PC and rejected at the stage of Section 203 of the Cr.PC, a second complaint or a second protest petition would be required. It has to be sustainable.”the court observed.

“In short, the maintainability or otherwise of the second complaint will depend on how the earlier complaint was/is rejected in the first instance.”said the court.

Background

In this case, the complainant had filed a protest against the negative final report submitted by the police to the magistrate. The protest petition was treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.PC alleging that the investigation was not conducted properly and praying for the same to be taken into consideration.

However, the objection petition was rejected by the judge on the grounds that there was no harm in the investigation. However, instead of appealing the dismissal of the first complaint, a second complaint was filed by the complainant before the magistrate, alleging the same grounds set forth in the first complaint. The second complaint was dismissed by the judge on the grounds that it was not maintainable in law.

However, the magistrate’s decision to dismiss the second complaint was intervened by the Court of Session and the High Court, leading to the filing of the present appeal by the defendant in the High Court.

Decision

Setting aside the decision of the Supreme Court, the decision written by Justice CT Ravikumar It was observed that the magistrate’s decision to reject the second complaint was appropriate, since the nature of the allegations in both complaints was the same and the second complaint did not contain an exceptional situation requiring the intervention of the courts.

“In the case at hand, when the objection petition dated 05.05.2011 and the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 are examined, it is understood that the second complaint was made after the acceptance of the final report submitted based on the investigation made in the FIR based on the complaint dated 20.07.2011. After evaluating the argument petition on 11.11.2010 and listening to the complainant (the second defendant here), it was concluded that the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 was made, which was a repetition of the first complaint dated 11.11.2010 and stated that the complaint in question was not properly investigated, and action should be taken about the second complaint dated 20.07.2011. . In fact, it is beyond doubt that the basis of the main complaint dated 11.11.2010 and the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 are the same..”the court observed.

“A scan of the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 will reveal that none of the situations permitted in terms of the above-mentioned decisions exist in the present case for the continuation of the said complaint. This being the case, the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court cannot be justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned CJM dated 12.07.2012, holding that the second complaint is not maintainable in law and giving further directions.”the court added.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. Against Assam and Anr State.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Click to read/download the decision

Appearance:

Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy, Senior Advocate, for the Petitioners. Mr. Pritthish Roy, Esq. Ms. Kakali Roy, Esq. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate. (AC) Honorable Member of Parliament Parthiban, AOR

Mr. Nalin Kohli, Senior AAG Mr. Ankit Roy, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Esq., for the respondent(s). Mr. Anshul Malik, Esq. Mr. Ayuushman Arora, Esq. Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Esq. Mr. Manish Goswami, Esq. Mr. Rongon Choudhury, Esq. Mr. Priyonkoo Gogoi, Esq. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR