Second Complaint/ Protest Petition

 

Taking of Cognizance Private Complaint/ Second complaint:

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury and others Vs. State of Assam and another, has held that the second complaint or a second protest petition would be maintainable even if the final report is found to be negative, but only if there are some core differences in the second complaint. 

Even when the Final Report after investigation is accepted and protest petition thereto is rejected, the Magistrate can still take cognizance upon a second complaint or second protest petition, on the same or similar allegation or facts.

Merely because the Supreme Court has held in some of such decision that when an inquiry is conducted by a magistrate under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the complaint is dismissed on merits, a second complaint on the same facts cannot be maintainable unless there are very exceptional circumstances, it could not be understood that in all those cases where the complaint by the Magistrate was not proceeded under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and was not dismissed at the stage of section 203 Cr.P.C., the second complaint or the second protest petition would be maintainable.

COUNCLUSION:

The Supreme Court observed that the Second Complaint on “almost identical facts” as first complaint would not maintainable, if the core of both complaints is same; the second complaint ought not to be entertained.

The Supreme Court examined section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is found on the maxim “ Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”, which means that no one shall be vexed twice for one and the same cause. The section provides no one is convicted or acquitted shall be tried for the same offence again for one and the same cause. Thus it can be seen that in order to bar the trail in terms of section 300 Cr.P.C. in this case, the court found that since the protest petition has been fully considered and rejected by the CJM, and the Final report accepted, there was no basis for allowing a second complaint with identical facts.

In the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar(1962), the court held that a second complaint on the same facts is only entertained in “exceptional circumstances”, such as an incomplete record or a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint. The Court explained that when a complaint is dismissed on its merits, a second complaint/protest petition should not be entertained unless there are very exceptional circumstances.

the Court held, “A scanning of the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 would reveal that none of the situations permissible in terms of the decisions referred supra exist in the case at hand to maintain the said complaint. When that be the position, the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court were not justified in interfering with the order passed by the learned CJM dated 12.07.2012 holding the second complaint as not maintainable in law and issuing further direction.”