An importance question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 834 that whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not.
The Hon’ble Court while relying upon and affirming the ratio laid down in Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr elaborated on the courses available to a Magistrate on receipt of negative final report/ cancellation report/ closure report.
The Court held that on receipt of a negative report, the following four courses are open to the Magistrate concerned: –
1. To accept the report and to drop the proceedings;
2. To direct further investigation to be made by the police.
3. To investigate himself or refer the investigation to be made by another Magistrate under Section 159, Cr.P.C., and
4. To take cognizance of the offence under Section 200, Cr.P.C., as private complaint when materials are sufficient in his opinion as if the complainant is prepared for that course.
It was further held that even when Final Report filed after investigation based on the FIR registered pursuant to the receipt of complaint forwarded by a Court for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., 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 allegations or facts. But this position is subject to conditions.
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.”
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 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 inquired into.’
It was finally held that a second complaint can lie only on fresh facts or even on the previous facts only if a special case is made out.