A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The issue revolves around the maintainability of a second complaint filed after the dismissal of a protest petition and acceptance of a negative Final Report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. The core facts and allegations in the first and second complaints are identical. The Supreme Court held that a second complaint is not maintainable where the earlier complaint was dismissed on merits and in a manner known to law. Exceptionally, second complaints are allowed only when new facts emerge or when the first dismissal was due to incomplete consideration.

The Supreme Court restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), who dismissed the second complaint, holding it legally untenable. The decision by the Sessions Judge and High Court to interfere with this order was set aside.

Keywords:
Second Complaint, Negative Final Report, Protest Petition, Section 202 CrPC, Section 203 CrPC, Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 4451 of 2024.

iii) Judgement Date:
05 November 2024.

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum:
Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal.

vi) Author:
Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

vii) Citation:
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 834.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Sections 156(3), 202, 203, 300(1), and 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Maxim: Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present case emerges from a legal dispute concerning the maintainability of a second complaint filed by the respondent after the dismissal of a protest petition and the acceptance of a Final Report under Section 173 of the CrPC. The first complaint, filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, culminated in a negative report after investigation. Upon filing objections to this report, the complainant failed to convince the court. Despite this, the complainant initiated a fresh complaint on the same facts and allegations, which was dismissed by the CJM but subsequently revived by the Sessions Judge and High Court.

The appeal before the Supreme Court scrutinized whether the second complaint, being based on identical facts, was legally maintainable.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. First Complaint: On 11.11.2010, the complainant filed a complaint alleging offenses under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded this complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

2. Negative Final Report: After investigation, the police submitted a Final Report under Section 173 CrPC on 28.02.2011, effectively exonerating the accused.

3. Protest Petition: Aggrieved by the Final Report, the complainant filed a written objection (narazi petition) on 05.05.2011, challenging the adequacy of the investigation. The CJM dismissed the protest petition and accepted the Final Report on 06.06.2011.

4. Second Complaint: On 20.07.2011, the complainant filed a fresh complaint before the CJM, repeating the same set of allegations.

5. Legal Proceedings:

   • The CJM dismissed the second complaint as not maintainable on 12.07.2012.
   • The Sessions Judge overturned the CJM’s decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration on 28.02.2013.
   • The Gauhati High Court affirmed the Sessions Judge’s decision on 08.01.2021, leading to the present appeal.

6. Supreme Court Proceedings: The appellants contended that the second complaint is barred in law as it arises from the same facts and the earlier complaint was decided on merits.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a second complaint based on identical facts is maintainable after the dismissal of the protest petition and acceptance of the Final Report?

2. Whether the principle of “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” applies to this case?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The second complaint is a reproduction of the first complaint and lacks new material or facts.

2. The CJM dismissed the first complaint on merits after rejecting the protest petition. Therefore, the complainant is barred from filing another complaint.

3. The principle of “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” applies as the accused cannot be vexed twice for the same cause.

4. Reliance was placed on precedents such as Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar and Samta Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The second complaint was valid since the first protest petition was not treated as a complaint.

2. The earlier dismissal was not on full merits; hence, the second complaint is maintainable in law.

3. The complainant argued that the investigation was perfunctory and did not address crucial facts.

4. Reliance was placed on Mahesh Chand v. B. Janaradhan Reddy and Shivshankar Singh to justify the second complaint.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A second complaint on identical facts is not maintainable if the first complaint was dismissed on merits and in a manner known to law.

2. The acceptance of the Final Report and dismissal of the protest petition by the CJM constituted a judicial determination on merits.

3. The core allegations in both complaints were identical, and no new material facts emerged.

b. OBITER DICTA

The court emphasized that complainants cannot misuse the judicial process by filing repeated complaints on the same facts.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court clarified the law on maintainability of second complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision reinforces the principles of finality and judicial discipline. This judgment prevents vexatious litigation and protects the rights of the accused from being harassed through repetitive complaints.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Samta Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 5 SCC 378.
2. Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 1 SCC 130.
3. Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876.
4. Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy (2003) 1 SCC 734.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Sections 2(d), 156(3), 202, 203, and 300(1) of the CrPC.