In a recent judgment, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal ruled that a second complaint based on the same set of facts is not maintainable if the initial complaint has already been adjudicated on merits. This ruling, delivered in Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1242 of 2021), reinforces the principle that litigants cannot repeatedly file complaints to reopen matters previously resolved by competent courts.
The appeal, filed by Subrata Choudhury and others against the State of Assam and another, revolved around the filing of a second complaint by the respondent after the final report in the first complaint was accepted, with objections dismissed. Justice Ravikumar, writing for the Court, highlighted the necessity for legal finality, stating that “repeated complaints by frustrated litigants cannot be maintained.”
Background of the Case
The case began when the respondent filed a complaint on November 11, 2010, with the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Cachar, Silchar. The complaint was forwarded for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), resulting in FIR No. 244/2010 under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, following the police investigation, a negative final report was filed on February 28, 2011, concluding that no prosecutable offence had been found.
The complainant objected to the final report through a “narazi” or protest petition, arguing that the investigation had been improperly conducted. Nevertheless, on June 6, 2011, the CJM accepted the final report, dismissing the protest petition after finding no investigative flaws. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second complaint on July 20, 2011, alleging the same offences. The CJM initially ordered an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., but after the appellants challenged the order in the High Court, the case was remanded to the CJM to decide on the maintainability of the second complaint. The CJM ruled it non-maintainable on July 12, 2012, a decision the respondent subsequently contested.
The Sessions Judge overturned the CJM’s order, treating the second complaint as valid. The appellants, however, pursued the matter to the Supreme Court, challenging the maintainability of the second complaint and questioning the Sessions Judge’s decision.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court addressed several important legal questions in this judgment:
1. Maintainability of a Second Complaint on Identical Facts: The Court examined whether a second complaint is permissible on the same set of facts after the first complaint was adjudicated. The appellants argued that once the initial complaint had been dismissed with the acceptance of the final report, the law precluded the respondent from filing a new complaint based on the same allegations.
2. Scope of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and the Principle of Double Jeopardy: While Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. prohibits double jeopardy, the appellants contended that even outside strict double jeopardy scenarios, once a competent court has decided on the facts, re-litigating those facts through repeated complaints undermines the judicial process.
3. Judicial Treatment of Protest Petitions and Narazi Complaints: The Court evaluated the nature of a protest petition and whether it constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. If a protest petition qualifies as a complaint, then filing an additional complaint on the same matter would not be permissible.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Ravikumar, delivering the verdict, concluded that the second complaint was not maintainable. The Court noted that, by law, a second complaint may only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as when new evidence emerges that was not previously available. The judgment emphasized:
“Repeated complaints by frustrated litigants cannot be maintained…The law does not permit re-opening of a matter that has been conclusively decided unless special circumstances justify such an action.”
The Court highlighted that the acceptance of the final report and the dismissal of the protest petition constituted a decision on the merits, thereby rendering any subsequent complaint on the same facts legally untenable.
Observations on Protest Petitions
The Court analyzed several precedents, including Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar and Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, which permit a second complaint only in exceptional cases. Justice Ravikumar stated:
“If the dismissal of the complaint was on merit…a second complaint on the same facts cannot be made unless there are very exceptional circumstances.”
The Court further clarified that protest petitions must meet the definition of a “complaint” as per Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. A protest petition merely expressing dissatisfaction with an investigation, without raising new allegations or evidence, does not meet this threshold.
