The Supreme Court has held that a second private complaint filed by the same complainant regarding the same occurrence is not maintainable when a negative report has already been submitted after a detailed investigation and accepted by the court.
The Bench, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, allowed the appeal in the case of Ranimol & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 4931 of 2025), setting aside the order of the Kerala High Court. The Apex Court observed that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law where the complainant attempted to prosecute individuals already cleared by the investigating agency without challenging the initial negative report.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the second respondent (the de facto complainant) against the appellants and other accused persons. The allegations involved offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The crux of the allegation was that the appellants, along with their husbands, confronted and attacked the complainant in the southern courtyard of his shop.
Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in 2015. However, the investigating agency submitted a negative report qua the appellants (Appellant Nos. 1 to 3), excluding them from the charge sheet. The Trial Court took cognizance of this negative report, and the trial commenced against the remaining accused in CC No. 295/2016.
The complainant did not file a protest petition against the negative report. However, after a lapse of two and a half years, he filed a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the same occurrence.
The appellants challenged the committal proceedings initiated by the Magistrate before the High Court of Kerala under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed their plea on the ground that a new offence under Section 308 of the IPC had been added in the complaint, justifying its maintenance.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the initiation of the second complaint constituted a clear “abuse of process of law.”
Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent argued that a second complaint could be maintained in exceptional cases. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surender Kaushik & Ors vs. State of U.P & Ors. (2013). The counsel submitted that since the offence charged was different, more accused persons were added, and the investigating agency had failed to investigate the said offence, the issuance of process should not be interfered with.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the respondent, observing that the case was one where “the process of law has been grossly abused and misused by the private respondent.”
The Court noted that a detailed investigation had been conducted resulting in a negative report, which the respondent had not challenged. The Bench stated: “The occurrence alleged is the same. The appellants were arrayed as accused in the earlier First Information Report, and they were subsequently dropped from the investigation. By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is certainly not maintainable.”
Addressing the reliance placed on Surender Kaushik & Ors., the Court clarified that the ratio of that judgment actually supported the appellants. The Bench quoted paragraph 24 of Surender Kaushik, which established that lodging two FIRs is not permissible for the same incident unless there are rival versions.
The Court distinguished the present case, noting: “The subsequent private complaint has been filed by the same informant, touching upon the same occurrence… We are neither dealing with a gross case nor a complaint given by a third party making new allegations against other accused persons.”
The Bench further emphasized the implications on the liberty of the accused, stating: “The mere fact that the accused persons named in the First Information Report are also arrayed in the second complaint would not make the complaint maintainable. We are dealing with the liberty of a person and, therefore, the question of double jeopardy would arise.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, which the Apex Court termed as “nothing but vexatious.”
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate qua the appellants. The Court clarified that this order would not have any bearing on the pending trial pertaining to the earlier FIR.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ranimol & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4931/2025
- Coram: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
