Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a complaint filed by the second respondent on 11.11.2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of FIR No.244/2010 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants. Upon completion of investigation, a negative Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on 28.02.2011. The complainant filed a written objection/narazi petition on 05.05.2011, but the learned CJM accepted the Final Report on 06.06.2011 after hearing the complainant and considering the objection, holding that the investigation did not suffer from any infirmity. Subsequently, on 20.07.2011, the complainant filed a second complaint with the same allegations, numbered as C.R. No.159 of 2011. The learned CJM directed an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 19.09.2011. The appellants challenged this order before the High Court, which set aside the order and directed the appellants to file an application raising the question of maintainability of the second complaint. The learned CJM then dismissed the second complaint as not maintainable on 12.07.2012. The complainant filed a Criminal Revision Petition No.101/2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, who allowed it on 28.02.2013, setting aside the CJM's order and remanding the case for fresh consideration. The appellants' revision against this order was dismissed by the High Court on 08.01.2021, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court framed the issue of whether a fresh complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable after acceptance of a negative Final Report. The appellants argued that the second complaint was barred under Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. and relied on various decisions. The Court held that Section 300(1) applies only when there has been a trial resulting in conviction or acquittal, which was not the case here as the appellants were never tried. The Court further held that there is no blanket bar against filing a second complaint on the same facts, and the Magistrate may treat a protest petition as a complaint if new facts or circumstances exist or if the earlier order was passed without proper application of mind. The Court found that the High Court and Sessions Judge had correctly held that the second complaint was maintainable, as the earlier acceptance of the final report did not preclude the complainant from filing a fresh complaint. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to the learned CJM for fresh consideration on merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Second Complaint - Maintainability - Section 173, 300(1), 200, 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 - There is no blanket bar against filing a second complaint on the same set of facts after acceptance of a negative final report. The Magistrate may treat a protest petition as a complaint and proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. if new facts or circumstances exist or if the earlier order was passed without proper application of mind. (Paras 10, 14-15) B) Criminal Procedure - Autrefois Acquit/Conviction - Section 300(1) Cr.P.C., 1973 - The principle of double jeopardy applies only when there has been a trial by a competent court resulting in conviction or acquittal. Mere acceptance of a negative final report does not amount to trial or acquittal, and thus Section 300(1) does not bar a second complaint. (Paras 7-9) C) Criminal Procedure - Magistrate's Options on Negative Report - Section 173, 159, 200 Cr.P.C., 1973 - On receipt of a negative report, a Magistrate may: (1) accept the report and drop proceedings; (2) direct further investigation; (3) investigate himself or refer to another Magistrate under Section 159; or (4) take cognizance under Section 200 as a private complaint if materials are sufficient. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether after acceptance of a negative Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., upon considering written objection/protest petition and hearing complainant, a fresh complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the second complaint is maintainable. The Court affirmed the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration on merits, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Second complaint maintainable after acceptance of negative final report
- Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. not applicable without trial
- Magistrate's options on negative report
- protest petition can be treated as complaint
