Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Second complaint lie only on fresh facts or on previous facts, only if, a special case is made out MANU/SC/0243/2020 - (02 Mar 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Samta Naidu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">In the facts of present case, the father of the complainant passed away. It is submitted that, on 2nd November, 2010, vehicle maruti -800 owned complainant's father has been sold by the Respondent by putting forged signatures of the complainant's father. 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. 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and therefore, the Respondents are liable to be punished accordingly. The Complaint came up before the Judicial Magistrate but the same was dismissed. 
The complainant being aggrieved filed Revision before Additional Sessions Judge. On 02.08.2014, the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur took cognizance in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC but rejected the Complaint with respect to other offences, which order was challenged by the Complainant by preferring Criminal Revision. Said Revision was allowed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, by his order directing the Magistrate to reconsider the documents available on record and to pass appropriate order for taking cognizance in regard to appropriate offences. This order was challenged by the Appellants by filing Criminal Revision in the High Court. 
The High Court, thus, found no infirmity warranting interference and dismissed both the Revision Petitions. Relying on the decision of this Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, he submitted that the High Court was in error in rejecting the Revision Applications. 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 was found, the second Complaint was rightly considered and taken cognizance of. 
The principal decision relied upon by both sides is one rendered by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar. The law declared in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar a has consistently been followed, 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 application of the principles laid down in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar shows that “a second complaint is permissible depending 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 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was on merits the position could be different”. 
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 benefit of “sale consideration of the vehicle” was derived by the accused. The order 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 CrPC. 
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 Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar. 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 Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar as amplified in Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. v. Fazru, nothing was stated as to why said additional material could not be obtained with reasonable diligence. 
The instant matter is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar. The High Court was thus not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable. Appeals allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar <manuid>MANU/SC/0149/1961</manuid>, Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. v. Fazru <manuid>MANU/SC/0904/2004</manuid></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Forged documents, Second complaint, Maintainability</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>