Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

1    

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.367-368 OF 2020  

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2019)  

SAMTA NAIDU & ANR.      …Appellants  

Versus  

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.  …Respondents  

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.  

1. Leave granted.    

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated  

12.02.2019 passed by the High Court1 in Criminal Revision No.2996 of  

2015 and Criminal Revision No. 2556 of 2016.   

3. One G. S. Naidu, who owned a Maruti-800 vehicle of 1995 make,  

passed away on 12.12.2001 leaving behind his widow, three sons and a  

 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench, Jabalpur

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

2    

daughter (who was unmarried and has since then passed away).  His second  

son (Complainant in the present matter) filed a complaint against his  

brother (the third son of G. S. Naidu) and his wife, submitting as under:-  

“3. It is submitted that the father of the  

complainant namely Late G.S. Naidu passed  

away on 12.12.2001.  A copy of the death  

certificate in this regard is enclosed herewith as  

Annexure A/1 with this complaint.  

4. It is submitted that on 2.11.2010, the  

aforesaid vehicle has been sold by the respondent  

by putting forged signatures of the complainant’s  

father on the Form 29 and 30 and also put forged  

signature on the affidavit annexed with Form  

No.29 and 30 knowing fully well that Late G.S.  

Naidu has passed away on 12.12.2001.  A true  

copy of Form No.29 and 30 and the affidavit is  

being filed herewith as Annexure A/2.  It is  

submitted that on the date when the vehicle was  

sold which was being owned by G.S. Naidu, the  

father of the complainant was no more.  

5. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and  

2, in order to sell the vehicle, has forged the  

signature of Late G.S. Naidu knowing fully well  

that he has passed away.  It is also submitted that  

the documents which have been forged by the  

respondents have been subsequently used for  

getting the benefit in the form of sale  

consideration of the vehicle.  The act of the  

respondents squarely covers the offences  

punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and  

471 of the IPC and therefore, the respondents are  

liable to be punished accordingly.  Hence, the  

present complaint is being filed before this  

Hon’ble Court.”  

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

3    

4. The Complaint came up before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,  

Jabalpur, who, by his order dated 05.07.2013 concluded as under:-  

“On the basis of evidence and document  

produced on behalf of complainant it appears that  

no prima facie case is made out against accused  

Samta Naidu and Dilip Naidu.  

Hence complaint under Section 203 Criminal  

Procedure Code is rejected and thereby  

dismissed.”  

5. The complainant being aggrieved, filed Revision before the VIII  

Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.  On 05.03.2014 the Counsel for the  

Complainant submitted that he wished to withdraw the Revision with  

liberty to file a fresh complaint on the basis of certain new facts, which  

request was opposed.  After perusing the record and considering the  

submissions, the Revisional Court observed as under:-  

“This is well settled position that new complaint  

can be filed any time on the basis of new facts and  

for which purposes there is no need of permission  

of this Court or permission of any court.  Because  

revisionist does not wish to press instant revision  

any more, hence instant revision is dismissed on  

this ground alone.  Revision Petition is thus  

disposed of accordingly.”  

6. Thereafter, Complaint Case No. 9226 of 2014 was preferred by the  

Complainant on same allegations but relying on additional material  

adverted to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of said Complaint, the material was:-

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

4    

a) The credit note in the sum of Rs.37,500/- issued  

upon request of the Appellants by the representatives of  

Standard Auto Agency, Jabalpur after valuing the vehicle.  

b) The fact that said amount of Rs.37,500/- was  

thereafter adjusted towards purchase of a new vehicle in  

the name of the first Appellant.  

c) The Registration Certificate of the new vehicle  

issued in the name of first Appellant.  

d) Certified copies of said documents received from  

the office of RTO, Jabalpur.  

Based on the aforesaid documents, it was submitted that cognizance  

be taken of the offences punishable under Sections 201, 409, 420, 467,  

468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,  “IPC”).  

7. On 02.08.2014, the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur took  

cognizance in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but  

rejected the Complaint with respect to other offences, which order was  

challenged by the Complainant by preferring Criminal Revision No.288  

of 2014.  Said Revision was allowed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge,  

Jabalpur, by his order dated 02.11.2015 directing the Magistrate to  

reconsider the documents available on record and to pass appropriate

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

5    

order for taking cognizance in regard to appropriate offences.  This order  

was challenged by the Appellants by filing Criminal Revision No.2996 of  

2015 in the High Court.  

8. During the pendency of the aforesaid Revision in the High Court,  

the matter was taken up and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur  

took cognizance of all offences alleged in the complaint.  Thereafter, the  

Additional Sessions Judge – X by his order dated 20.09.2016 framed  

charges against the Appellants in respect of offences punishable under  

Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.  This order led to the  

filing of Criminal Revision No.2556 of 2016 by the Appellants in the High  

Court.  Both the aforesaid Criminal Revisions were heard together by the  

High Court.    

9. On the question, whether the second complaint was maintainable or  

not, the High Court relied upon the decision of this Court in Pramatha  

Nath Taluqdar  vs.  Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2 and observed:-  

“12. However, in the context of the instant case,  

when we compare the two complaints, it is obvious  

that at the time of filing the first complaint, the  

complainant seems to be aware only of the fact that  

accused persons Dilip and Samta had unilaterally  

sold a car belonging to G. Shankar Naidu and  

which, after his death, had become joint family  

property.  The complainant seems to have acquired  

 2 AIR 1962 SC 876 = (1962) Supp 2 SCR 297

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

6    

the knowledge of details of the transaction later.   

Therefore, subsequent complaint provides the  

particulars of the transaction in far greater details.”  

The High Court, thus, found no infirmity warranting interference  

and dismissed both the Revision Petitions.  

10. While issuing notice in the present matters this Court directed the  

Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand  

Only) in the Registry of this Court within two weeks.  Said sum stands  

deposited in the Registry.  This direction was passed so that if any of the  

heirs of G. S. Naidu felt that his share in the property left behind by the  

deceased was not being given to him, the internal disputes/difference  

between the members of the family could be sorted out. But such  

suggestions were not acceptable to the Complainant.    

11. The parties thereafter exchanged pleadings and the matter was  

heard.  Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Advocate, appeared in  

support of the Appeal.  Relying on the decision of this Court in Taluqdar2,  

he submitted that the High Court was in error in rejecting the Revision  

Applications.  Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate for the  

respondent-complainant also relied upon the same decision and other  

decisions referred to by the High Court, to submit that as new material

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

7    

was found, the second Complaint was rightly considered and taken  

cognizance of.  

12. The principal decision relied upon by both sides is one rendered by  

a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Taluqdar2.  Para 35 of the majority  

decision authored by Kapur, J. discloses that a Complaint under Sections  

467 and 471 read with Section 109 of the IPC was preferred on the  

allegations that an unregistered deed of agreement purportedly executed  

on 19.01.1948, a transfer deed in respect of 1000 shares purportedly  

executed on 05.02.1951 and the minutes of proceedings of the Board  

meetings purporting to bear the signature of late Sri Nalini Ranjan Sarkar  

were stated to have been forged.  The Chief Presidency Magistrate  

dismissed the complaint against which Revision was preferred before the  

High Court of Calcutta.  Said Revision Petition was dismissed and the  

matter was carried before this Court but the Appeal was dismissed as  

withdrawn.  Thereafter, another complaint was brought under very same  

Sections.  The Chief Presidency Magistrate took cognizance of second  

Complaint against which order, Revision was preferred in the High Court  

of Calcutta.  The matter came up before the Division Bench and the  

additional material projected in support of the submission that the second

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

8    

Complaint was maintainable was dealt with by the Division Bench.  The  

matter in that behalf was adverted to this Court as under:-  

“In regard to the filing of a second complaint it held  

that a fresh complaint could be entertained after the  

dismissal of previous complaint under Section 203  

Criminal Procedure Code when there was manifest  

error or manifest miscarriage of justice or when  

fresh evidence was forthcoming. The Bench was of  

the opinion that the fact in regard to the City  

Telephone Exchange was a new matter and because  

Pramode Ranjan Sarkar was not permitted to take a  

photostat copy of the minutes-book, it was possible  

that his attention was not drawn to the City  

Telephone Exchange which was not in existence at  

the relevant time and that there was sufficient  

reason for Pramode Ranjan Sarkar for not  

mentioning the matter of City Exchange in his  

complaint. It also held that the previous Chief  

Presidency Magistrate Mr Chakraborty had  

altogether ignored the evidence of a large number  

of witnesses who were competent to prove the  

handwriting and signature of N.R. Sarkar and he  

had no good reasons for not accepting their  

evidence. It could not be said therefore that there  

was a judicial enquiry of the matter before the  

previous Chief Presidency Magistrate; the decision  

was rather arbitrary and so resulted in manifest  

miscarriage of justice. The Court was of the opinion  

therefore that there was no reason to differ from the  

finding of the Chief Presidency Magistrate Mr  

Bijoyesh Mukerjee and that there was a prima facie  

case against the appellants.”   

12.1 The issue was considered by the majority judgment of this Court  

as under:-  

“48. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure the  

subject of “Complaints to Magistrates” is dealt with  

in Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

The provisions relevant for the purpose of this case  

are Sections 200, 202 and 203. Section 200 deals

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

9    

with examination of complainants and Sections  

202, 203 and 204 with the powers of the Magistrate  

in regard to the dismissal of complaint or the issuing  

of process. The scope and extent of Sections 202  

and 203 were laid down in Vadilal Panchal v.  

Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker3. The scope of  

enquiry under Section 202 is limited to finding out  

the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to  

determine whether process should issue or not and  

Section 203 lays down what materials are to be  

considered for the purpose. Under Section 203  

Criminal Procedure Code the judgment which the  

Magistrate has to form must be based on the  

statements of the complainant and of his witnesses  

and the result of the investigation or enquiry if any.  

He must apply his mind to the materials and form  

his judgment whether or not there is sufficient  

ground for proceeding. Therefore if he has not  

misdirected himself as to the scope of the enquiry  

made under Section 202, of the Criminal Procedure  

Code, and has judicially applied his mind to the  

material before him and then proceeds to make his  

order it cannot be said that he has acted erroneously.  

An order of dismissal under Section 203, of the  

Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the  

entertainment of a second complaint on the same  

facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional  

circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was  

passed on an incomplete record or on a  

misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or  

it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where  

new facts which could not, with reasonable  

diligence, have been brought on the record in the  

previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot  

be said to be in the interests of justice that after a  

decision has been given against the complainant  

upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other  

person should be given another opportunity to have  

his complaint enquired into. Allah Ditto v. Karam  

Baksh4; Ram Narain Chaubey v. Panachand Jain5;  

Hansabai Sayaji Payagude   v. Ananda Ganuji  

 3 AIR 1960 SC 1113  4   AIR 1930 Lah 879  5   AIR 1949 Pat 256

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

10    

Payagude6 Doraisami v. Subramania7. In regard to  

the adducing of new facts for the bringing of a fresh  

complaint the Special Bench in the judgment under  

appeal did not accept the view of the Bombay High  

Court or the Patna High Court in the cases above  

quoted and adopted the opinion of Maclean, C.J. in  

Queen Empress v. Dolegobinda Das8 affirmed by a  

Full Bench in Dwarka Nath Mandal v. Benimadhas  

Banerji9. It held therefore that a fresh complaint can  

be entertained where there is manifest error, or  

manifest miscarriage of justice in the previous order  

or when fresh evidence is forthcoming.”  

12.2 It was observed in para 50 as under:-   

 “50.   Taking  first the question of fresh evidence,  

the view of some of the High Courts that it should  

be such that it could not with reasonable diligence  

have been adduced is, in our opinion, a correct view  

of the law.  It cannot be the law that the complainant  

may first place before the Magistrate some of the  

facts and evidence in his possession and if he fails  

he can then adduce some more evidence and so on.   

That in our opinion, is not a correct view of the  

law.”  

12.3 The majority judgment thus accepted the challenge, allowed the  

Appeal and dismissed the Complaint with following observations:-  

“61. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion  

that the bringing of the fresh complaint is a gross  

abuse of the process of the Court and is not with the  

object of furthering the interests of justice.  

…      …      …  

 6   AIR 1949 Bom 384  7   AIR 1918 Mad 484  8   ILR 28 Cal 211  9   ILR 28 Cal 652 (FB)

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

11    

63.  For these reasons we allow the appeals, set  

aside the order of the High Court and of the learned  

Chief Presidency Magistrate and dismiss the  

complaint.”  

12.4 The dissenting opinion was expressed by S.K. Das, J.  

13. The law declared in Taluqdar2  has consistently been followed, for  

instance, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh  vs.  Kali Singh10 it was observed:   

“It is now well settled that a second complaint can lie only on fresh facts  

or even on the previous facts only if a special case is made out”.  The view  

taken in Bindeshwari10 was followed in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and  

another  vs.  S.N. Thakur and another11.    

13.1  In Jatinder Singh and Others  vs.  Ranjit Kaur12 the issue was  

whether the first complaint having been dismissed for default, could the  

second complaint be maintained.  The matter was considered as under:-  

“9. There is no provision in the Code or in any other  

statute which debars a complainant from preferring a  

second complaint on the same allegations if the first  

complaint did not result in a conviction or acquittal or  

even discharge. Section 300 of the Code, which debars  

a second trial, has taken care to explain that “the  

dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the  

accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this  

section”. However, when a Magistrate conducts an  

 10 (1997) 1 SCC 57  11 (1986) 2 SCC 709  12 (2001) 2 SCC 570

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

12    

inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses  

the complaint on merits, a second complaint on the  

same facts cannot be made unless there are very  

exceptional circumstances. Even so, a second  

complaint is permissible depending upon how the  

complaint happened to be dismissed at the first  

instance.  

…   … …  

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.  

There appeared a difference of opinion earlier as to  

whether a second complaint could have been filed  

when the dismissal was under Section 203. The  

controversy was settled by this Court in Pramatha  

Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2. A majority of  

Judges of the three-Judge Bench held thus:  

“An order of dismissal under Section 203,  

Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar  

to the entertainment of a second complaint on  

the same facts but it will be entertained only in  

exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the  

previous order as passed on an incomplete  

record or on a misunderstanding of the nature  

of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd,  

unjust or foolish or where new facts which  

could not, with reasonable diligence, have  

been brought on the record in the previous  

proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be  

said to be in the interest of justice that after a  

decision has been given against the complaint  

upon a full consideration of his case, he or any  

other person should be given another  

opportunity to have his complaint inquired  

into.”  

S.K. Das, J. (as he then was) while dissenting from the  

said majority view had taken the stand that right of a  

complainant to file a second complaint would not be

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

13    

inhibited even by such considerations. But at any rate  

the majority view is that the second complaint would  

be maintainable if the dismissal of the first complaint  

was not on merits.”  

(Emphasis supplied)  

13.2. In Ranvir Singh  vs.  State of Haryana and Another13 the issue was  

set out in para 23 of the decision and the discussion that followed thereafter  

was as under:-  

“23. In the instant case, the question is narrowed down  

further as to whether such a second complaint would  

be maintainable when the earlier one had not been  

dismissed on merits, but for the failure of the  

complainant to put in the process fees for effecting  

service.  

24. The answer has been provided firstly in Pramatha  

Nath Talukdar case2, wherein this Court had held that  

even if a complaint was dismissed under Section 203  

CrPC, a second complaint would still lie under  

exceptional circumstances, indicated hereinbefore. The  

said view has been consistently upheld in subsequent  

decisions of this Court. Of course, the question of  

making a prayer for recalling the order of dismissal  

would not be maintainable before the learned  

Magistrate in view of Section 362 CrPC, but such is  

not the case in these special leave petitions.  

25. In the present cases, neither have the complaints  

been dismissed on merit nor have they been dismissed  

at the stage of Section 203 CrPC. On the other hand,  

only on being satisfied of a prima facie case, the  

learned Magistrate had issued process on the  

complaint.  

26. The said situation is mainly covered by the decision  

of this Court in Jatinder Singh case12, wherein the  

 13 (2009) 9 SCC 642

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

14    

decision in Pramatha Nath Talukdar case2 was also  

taken into consideration and it was categorically  

observed that in the absence of any provision in the  

Code barring a second complaint being filed on the  

same allegation, there would be no bar to a second  

complaint being filed on the same facts if the first  

complaint did not result in the conviction or acquittal  

or even discharge of the accused, and if the dismissal  

was not on merit but on account of a default on the part  

of the complainant.”  

13.3. In Poonam Chand Jain and Another  vs.  Fazru14 the issue  

whether after the dismissal of the earlier complaint had attained finality,  

could a second complaint be maintained on identical facts was considered  

as under:-  

“14. In the background of these facts, the question  

which crops up for determination by this Court is  

whether after an order of dismissal of complaint  

attained finality, the complainant can file another  

complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing  

in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the  

first complaint or its dismissal.  

15. Almost similar questions came up for consideration  

before this Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj  

Ranjan Sarkar2. The majority judgment in Pramatha  

Nath2 was delivered by Kapur, J. His Lordship held  

that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the  

Criminal Procedure Code (for short “the Code”) is,  

however, no bar to the entertainment of a second  

complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained  

only in exceptional circumstances. This Court  

explained the exceptional circumstances as:  

(a) where the previous order was passed on  

incomplete record, or  

 14 (2010) 2 SCC 631

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

15    

(b) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the  

complaint, or  

(c) the order which was passed was manifestly  

absurd, unjust or foolish, or  

(d) where new facts which could not, with  

reasonable diligence, have been brought on the  

record in the previous proceedings.  

16. This Court in Pramatha Nath2 made it very clear  

that interest of justice cannot permit that after a  

decision has been given on a complaint upon full  

consideration of the case, the complainant should be  

given another opportunity to have the complaint  

enquired into again. In para 50 of the judgment the  

majority judgment of this Court opined that fresh  

evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not  

with reasonable diligence have been brought on record.  

This Court very clearly held that it cannot be settled  

law which permits the complainant to place some  

evidence before the Magistrate which are in his  

possession and then if the complaint is dismissed  

adduce some more evidence. According to this Court,  

such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the  

law. (para 50, p. 899)  

17. This question again came up for consideration  

before this Court in Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur12.  

There also this Court by relying on the principle in  

Pramatha Nath2 held that there is no provision in the  

Code or in any other statute which debars a  

complainant from filing a second complaint on the  

same allegation as in the first complaint. But this Court  

added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under  

Section 202 of the Code and dismisses a complaint on  

merits a second complaint on the same facts could not  

be made unless there are “exceptional circumstances”.  

This Court held in para 12, if the dismissal of the first  

complaint is not on merit but the dismissal is for the  

default of the complainant then there is no bar in filing  

a second complaint on the same facts. However, if the  

dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the  

Code was on merit the position will be different.

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

16    

18.   Saying so, the learned Judges in Ranjit Kaur12 held  

that the controversy has been settled by this Court in  

Pramatha Nath2 and quoted the observation of Kapur,  

J. in para 48 of Pramatha Nath2: (AIR p. 899, para 48)  

“48. … An order of dismissal under Section  

203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is,  

however, no bar to the entertainment of a  

second complaint on the same facts but it will  

be entertained only in exceptional  

circumstances e.g. where the previous order  

was passed on an incomplete record or on a  

misunderstanding of the nature of the  

complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust  

or foolish or where new facts which could  

not, with reasonable diligence, have been  

brought on the record in the previous  

proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be  

said to be in the interest of justice that after a  

decision has been given against the  

complainant upon a full consideration of his  

case, he or any other person should be given  

another opportunity to have his complaint  

enquired into.”  

19. Again in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy15,  

a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered this  

question in para 19 at p. 740 of the Report. The learned  

Judges of this Court held that a second complaint is not  

completely barred nor is there any statutory bar in  

filing a second complaint on the same facts in a case  

where a previous complaint was dismissed without  

assigning any reason. The Magistrate under Section  

204 of the Code can take cognizance of an offence and  

issue process if there is sufficient ground for  

proceeding. In Mahesh Chand15 this Court relied on the  

ratio in Pramatha Nath2 and held if the first complaint  

had been dismissed the second complaint can be  

entertained only in exceptional circumstances and  

thereafter the exceptional circumstances pointed out in  

Pramatha Nath2 were reiterated. Therefore, this Court  

 15 AIR 2003 SC 702

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

17    

holds that the ratio in Pramatha Nath2 is still holding  

the field. The same principle has been reiterated once  

again by this Court in Hira Lal v. State of U.P.16 In para  

14 of the judgment this Court expressly quoted the ratio  

in Mahesh Chand15 discussed hereinabove.  

20. Following the aforesaid principles which are more  

or less settled and are holding the field since 1962 and  

have been repeatedly followed by this Court, we are of  

the view that the second complaint in this case was on  

almost identical facts which was raised in the first  

complaint and which was dismissed on merits. So the  

second complaint is not maintainable. This Court finds  

that the core of both the complaints is the same.  

Nothing has been disclosed in the second complaint  

which is substantially new and not disclosed in first  

complaint. No case is made out that even after the  

exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second  

complaint were not within the of the first complainant.  

In fact, such a case could not be made out since the  

facts in both the complaints are almost identical.  

Therefore, the second complaint is not covered within  

exceptional circumstances explained in Pramatha  

Nath2. In that view of the matter the second complaint  

in the facts of this case, cannot be entertained.”  

(Emphasised supplied)   

13.4. In Udai Shankar Awasthi  vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh and  

Another17, where the earlier complaint was dismissed after the examination  

of witnesses on behalf of complainant, the matter was dealt with as under:-  

“47. The instant appeals are squarely covered by the  

observations made in Kishan Singh18 and thus, the  

proceedings must be labelled as nothing more than an  

abuse of the process of the court, particularly in view  

of the fact that, with respect to enact the same subject-

matter, various complaint cases had already been filed    

16 (2009) 11 SCC 89  17 (2013) 2 SCC 435  18 (2010) 8 SCC 775  (Kishan Singh  vs.  Gurpal Singh)

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

18    

by Respondent 2 and his brother, which were all  

dismissed on merits after the examination of witnesses.  

In such a fact situation, Complaint Case No. 628 of  

2011 filed on 31-5-2001 was not maintainable. Thus,  

the Magistrate concerned committed a grave error by  

entertaining the said case, and wrongly took  

cognizance and issued summons to the appellants.”  

13.5. In Ravinder Singh  vs.  Sukhbir Singh and Others19  the matter  

was considered from the standpoint whether a frustrated litigant be  

permitted to give vent to his frustration and whether a person be permitted  

to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly.  The discussion was as  

under:-  

“26. While considering the issue at hand in  

Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar20 this Court, after  

considering its earlier judgments in Pramatha Nath  

Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar2, Jatinder Singh v.  

Ranjit Kaur12, Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy15  

and Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru21 held: (Shivshankar  

Singh case20, SCC p. 136, para 18)  

“18. … it is evident that the law does not  

prohibit filing or entertaining of the second  

complaint even on the same facts provided  

the earlier complaint has been decided on the  

basis of insufficient material or the order has  

been passed without understanding the  

nature of the complaint or the complete facts  

could not be placed before the court or where  

the complainant came to know certain facts  

after disposal of the first complaint which  

could have tilted the balance in his favour.  

However, second complaint would not be  

maintainable wherein the earlier complaint  

 19 (2013) 9 SCC 245  20 (2012) 1 SCC 130  21 (2004) 13 SCC 269

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

19    

has been disposed of on full consideration of  

the case of the complainant on merit.”  

27.   In Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh22 this  

Court has held that it is equally true that chagrined and  

frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent  

to their frustration by enabling them to invoke the  

jurisdiction of criminal courts in a cheap manner. In  

such a fact situation, the court must not hesitate to  

quash criminal proceedings.  

…    … …    

33. The High Court has dealt with the issue involved  

herein and the matter stood closed at the instance of  

Respondent 1 himself. Therefore, there can be no  

justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution  

on that basis afresh. The inherent power of the court in  

dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger  

interest of administration of justice and for preventing  

manifest injustice being done. Thus, it is a judicial  

obligation on the court to undo a wrong in course of  

administration of justice and to prevent continuation of  

unnecessary judicial process. It may be so necessary to  

curb the menace of criminal prosecution as an  

instrument of operation of needless harassment. A  

person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to  

harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is  

inbuilt in the inherent power of the court and the whole  

idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for  

which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount  

duty of the court to protect an apparently innocent  

person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis  

of wholly untenable complaint.”  

14. The application of the principles laid down in Taluqdar22 in  

Jatinder Singh12 shows that “a second complaint is permissible depending  

 22 (1982) 1 SCC 466

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

20    

upon how the complaint happened to be dismissed at the first instance”.  It  

was further laid down that “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 Singh13 and Poonam  

Chand Jain14. Para 16 of the Poonam Chand Jain14 also considered the  

effect of para 50 of the majority judgment in Talukdar2. 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.   

15.  If the facts of the present matter are considered in the light of these  

principles, it is clear that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in the first complaint  

contained the basic allegations that the vehicle belonging to the father was  

sold after the death of the father; that signatures of the father on Form 29  

and 30 were forged; that signatures on the affidavit annexed with Form 29  

and 30 were also forged; and that on the basis of such forged documents the

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

21    

benefit of “sale consideration of the vehicle” was derived by the accused.   

The order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,  

shows that after considering the evidence and documents produced on  

behalf of the complainant, no prima facie case was found and the complaint  

was rejected under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.   

The stand taken before the Revisional Court discloses that at that stage  

some new facts were said to be in possession of the complainant and as  

such liberty was sought to withdraw the Revision with further liberty to file  

a fresh complaint.  The liberty was not given and it was observed that if  

there were new facts, the complainant, in law would be entitled to present  

a new complaint and as such there was no need of any permission from the  

Court. The Revisional Court was definitely referring to the law laid down  

by this Court on the basis of the principles in Taluqdar2.  Thereafter a  

complaint with new material in the form of a credit note and Registration  

Certificate was filed. The core allegations, however, remained the same.  

The only difference was that the second complaint referred to additional  

material in support of the basic allegations. Again, in terms of principle laid  

down in para 50 of Taluqdar2 as amplified in para 16 in Poonam Chand  

Jain14, nothing was stated as to why said additional material could not be  

obtained with reasonable diligence.  

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

22    

16.   Reliance was, however, placed by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned  

Senior Advocate, on para 18 of the decision of this Court in Shivshankar  

Singh20.  In that case a Protest Petition was filed by the complainant even  

before a final report was filed by the police.  While said Protest Petition  

was pending consideration, the final report was filed, whereafter second  

Protest Petition was filed.  Challenge raised by the accused that the second  

Protest Petition was not maintainable, was accepted by the High Court.  In  

the light of these facts the matter came to be considered by this Court as  

under:-  

“7. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing  

for the appellant has submitted that the High Court  

failed to appreciate that the so-called first protest  

petition having been filed prior to the filing of the final  

report was not maintainable and just has to be ignored.  

The learned Magistrate rightly did not proceed on the  

basis of the said protest petition and it remained merely  

a document in the file. The second petition was the only  

protest petition which could be entertained as it had  

been filed subsequent to the filing of the final  

report…......  

18. Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit  

filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on  

the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been  

decided on the basis of insufficient material or the  

order has been passed without understanding the nature  

of the complaint or the complete facts could not be  

placed before the court or where the complainant came  

to know certain facts after disposal of the first  

complaint which could have tilted the balance in his  

favour. However, the second complaint would not be  

maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been  

disposed of on full consideration of the case of the  

complainant on merit.

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

23    

19. The protest petition can always be treated as a  

complaint and proceeded with in terms of Chapter XV  

CrPC. Therefore, in case there is no bar to entertain a  

second complaint on the same facts, in exceptional  

circumstances, the second protest petition can also  

similarly be entertained only under exceptional  

circumstances. In case the first protest petition has been  

filed without furnishing the full facts/particulars  

necessary to decide the case, and prior to its  

entertainment by the court, a fresh protest petition is  

filed giving full details, we fail to understand as to why  

it should not be maintainable.”  

(Emphasis supplied)  

17.  As against the facts in Shivshankar20, the present case stands on a  

different footing.  There was no legal infirmity in the first complaint filed  

in the present matter.  The complaint was filed more than a year after the  

sale of the vehicle which meant the complainant had reasonable time at his  

disposal.  The earlier complaint was dismissed after the Judicial  Magistrate  

found that no prima facie case was made out; the earlier complaint was not  

disposed of on any technical ground; the material adverted to in the second  

complaint was only in the nature of supporting material;  and the material  

relied upon in the second complaint was not such which could not have  

been procured earlier.  Pertinently, the core allegations in both the  

complaints were identical.  In the circumstances, the instant matter is  

completely covered by the decision of this Court in Taluqdar2 as explained

Criminal Appeal Nos.367-368 of 2020 @ SLP(Crl.)Nos.4418-4419 of 2020  Samta Naidu & Anr.  Vs.   State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.  

24    

in Jatinder Singh12 and Poonam Chand Jain14.  The High Court was thus  

not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable.   

18.  In the aforesaid premises, we allow these appeals, set aside the  

decision of the High Court and dismiss Complaint Case No.9226 of 2014  

as not being maintainable.  The amount deposited by the appellants shall  

now be returned to them along with any interest accrued thereon.  

…………………………J.  

[Uday Umesh Lalit]  

…………………………J.  

[Vineet Saran]  

New Delhi;  

March 02, 2020.