The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has held that a second criminal complaint is not maintainable on the same set of facts once a Final Report submitted by the police has been accepted by the Magistrate after considering and rejecting a protest petition.
Justice Brij Raj Singh allowed the application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), quashing the summoning order dated January 10, 2020, and the entire proceedings of the subsequent complaint case.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a violent incident on May 28, 2015, where the brothers and father of the applicant, Vishal Kumar Saroj, were murdered. The applicant lodged an FIR regarding this incident. Subsequently, Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in retaliation, leading to the registration of a cross-FIR (Case Crime No. 344 of 2015) against the applicant and others under various sections including 147, 148, 323, 308, and 326 of the IPC.
Following an investigation, the police submitted a Final Report (Closure Report). Opposite Party No. 2 filed a protest application against this report. After considering the objections, the Magistrate passed an order on April 8, 2017, accepting the Final Report submitted by the police.
Aggrieved by this, Opposite Party No. 2 filed a Criminal Revision (No. 111 of 2017), which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Pratapgarh on August 1, 2023.
However, on November 17, 2017, Opposite Party No. 2 filed a separate criminal complaint (Complaint No. 188 of 2017) regarding the same incident. The Magistrate, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., issued summons to the applicant on January 10, 2020. This summoning order and the complaint proceedings were challenged before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant, Sri Siddharth Sinha and Sri Lalji Yadav, argued that the complaint was not maintainable. They submitted that since the competent court had already accepted the Final Report on April 8, 2017, after considering the grievance raised in the protest petition, the complainant could not file a second complaint on the exact same set of facts.
The applicant relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Subrata Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary & others Versus The State of Assam & another (2024 INSC 834), arguing that “once the negative report/final report on the original complaint was accepted after rejecting the written objection/protest petition then on the same set of facts, complaint under Section 2(D) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as second complaint.”
Conversely, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, argued that the acceptance of a Final Report and the rejection of a protest application do not acquire the character of res judicata. He contended that the Magistrate’s order accepting the Final Report was administrative in nature and based on police investigation material, whereas a complaint case is based on evidence recorded before the Court.
The counsel for the opposite party relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Another and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P., submitting that there is no statutory bar to filing a second complaint if the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or was manifestly erroneous. He argued that the Magistrate’s order accepting the Final Report was perverse as it ignored medical evidence of injuries.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court, after hearing the submissions, observed that the factual matrix of the present case was identical to that of the Supreme Court’s decision in Subrata Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary.
Justice Brij Raj Singh quoted extensively from the Subrata Chaudhary judgment, wherein the Apex Court held that if the first complaint (or protest petition) was disposed of on merits and in a manner known to law, a second complaint on the same allegations is not maintainable.
The Court noted:
“The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra) has been pleased to held in Para-21 that in view of dismissal of the first complaint after considering the protest petition and hearing the complainant, the second complaint filed by the second respondent was not maintainable.”
Addressing the reliance placed by the Opposite Party on Mahesh Chand and Samta Naidu, the High Court pointed out that the Supreme Court in Subrata Chaudhary had considered these very judgments. The Court observed that in Subrata Chaudhary, the Apex Court found that where a protest petition is rejected by finding the investigation proper, and the Final Report is accepted, a subsequent complaint reproducing the same allegations is not maintainable.
The High Court held:
“The important fact is also to be flagged that the factual aspect of the present case is identical to the case of Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra). Therefore, this Court cannot take a different opinion and the law declared by the Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra) is binding.”
Decision
The Court concluded that since the Final Report was accepted by the Magistrate on April 8, 2017, after considering the protest application, and the revision against said order was also dismissed, the subsequent complaint filed on November 17, 2017, on the same facts was not maintainable.
The Court allowed the application, quashing the summoning order dated January 10, 2020, and the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint No. 188 of 2017.
The Court clarified that:
“In case opposite party no.2 is aggrieved, he may take recourse to law against the revisional order dated 1.8.2023.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vishal Kumar Saroj Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and another
- Case No: Application U/s 482 No. 3721 of 2021
- Bench: JusticeBrij Raj Singh
- Counsel for Applicant: Sri Siddharth Sinha, Sri Lalji Yadav, Sri Arun Sinha
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Sri Rao Narendra Singh (A.G.A.), Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar Maurya
