AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 395 wordsG.S. Chahal, J.
Pritam Singh respondent brought a complaint against Ranjit Singh and others, the present petitioners on 2711986. The petitioners were summoned and on 20101986, the complainant being absent, the complaint was dismissed for nonappearance. A second complaint was instituted by Pritam Singh on same facts on 1861987 and on the basis of this complaint, the petitioners were again summoned to stand trial. This summoning order in the complaint is the subject of challenge in the present petition brought under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners allege that second complaint on the basis of same facts is an abuse of the process of Court.
The factual position is not disputed It is, however, submitted that there was no bar on the institution of second complaint on the same facts, for the reasons that on 18101986, the date fixed in the complaint, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the next date was fixed by the Reader and no action could be taken by the magistrate. On that date. Further that under sec. 249, the complaint could be dismissed and the petitioners could be discharged only if offences were non cognizable or noncompoundable.
Assuming that the date 20101986 was fixed by the Reader, as claimed by the complainantrespondent and the order of dismissal being wrong on that basis or the order being incorrect for the reason that section 249 did not come into play, the respondent had the remedy of approaching the Sessions Court of this Court in revision for getting that order set aside. There will, however, be no justification for filing a fresh complaint, that too, after a lapse of 8 months from the date of order of dismissal and to keep the litigation pending. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2432, their Lordships observed :
"It is 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."
Thus, even if the order of discharge and dismissal of the complaint was contrary to provisions of law, the order had to be got set aside in revision but no second complaint on the same facts will lie. I hereby accept the petition and quash the complaint date 1861987 annexure P3 and all the consequent proceedings.
JUDGMENT accordingly.