TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the District of Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh. The Forensic Science Laboratory to whom the said sale-deed and acknowledgment were sent for a scientific opinion allegedly in its opinion dated 31st October, 1997 stated that the said sale-deed and acknowledgement were forged documents. However, in the meanwhile being not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police authorities, he filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, (West and South), Saroornagar in the District of Ranga Reddy against the respondent herein, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 426, 447 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. It is admitted that two civil suits are also pending between the parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal , would, inter alia, submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in arriving at the said conclusion as there does not exist any legal bar in filing a second complaint. Strong reliance, in this connection, has been placed on a judgment of the Patna High Court in Munilal Thakur Ors. etc. v. Nawal Kishore Thakur Anr. [1985 Crl.L.J.437] and a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court in The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Titilagarh v. Jayashankar Mund Anr. [1989 Crl.L.J.1578]. Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the criminal complaint filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of dismissal under s.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 interests 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 enquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is, to examine the complaint, and, unless he has reason to distrust the truth of the complaint, or for some other reason expressly recognized by law, such as, if he finds that no offence had been committed, he is bound to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint, and, unless he has good reason to doubt the truth of the complaint, he is bound to do justice to the complainant, to summon his witnesses and to hear them in the presence of the accused. The same view was expressed by the Madras High Court In re. Koyassan Kutty and it was observed that there was nothing in law against the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts on which a person had already been discharged, inasmuch as a discharge was not equivalent to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Magistrate thinks that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the second complaint, when a previous complaint on the same allegations was dismissed under s.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge posed the question as to what would be those exceptional circumstances. Noticing the decisions in Queen Empress v. Dolegobinda Dass [(1900) ILR 28 Cal.211], In re. Koyassan Kutty [AIR 1918, Mad. 494], Kumariah v. Chinna Naicker [AIR 1946, Mad. 167] and several other decisions, the learned Judge came to the conclusion : It will be noticed that in the test thus laid down the exceptional circumstances are brought under three categories; (1) manifest error, (2) manifest miscarriage of justice, and (3) new facts wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Patna High Court was concerned with the question as to whether a Magistrate even after accepting final report filed by the police, can take cognizance of offence upon a complaint or the protest petition on same or similar allegations of fact; to which the answer was rendered in the affirmative. The question which has arisen for consideration herein neither arose therein nor was canvassed. In Jayashankar Mund s case, the Orissa High Court again did not have any occasion to consider the question raised herein. The Court held : ..Even though a protest petition is in the nature of a complaint, it is referable to the investigation already held by the vigilance police culminating in the final report and because the informant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
