Surjit Kaur and ors. vs State of Punjab and anr.

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Baldev Singh respondent filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, against the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, alleging that petitioner No. 3 Girmej Singh had impersonated for him and executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 Surjit Kaur. It was further alleged that Jagat Ram and Amar Singh petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 had attested the saledeed and had conspired to cheat the respondent.

This complaint was dismissed by Shri Hukam Chand, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, vide his order dated April 24, 1987. The learned Magistrate passed the following order :

"In view of the above statement given by the complainant, the complaint shall stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant shall be at "liberty to file fresh complaint after collecting the documents. File be consigned to the recordroom".

On April 25, 1987, i.e. one day after the dismissal of the complaint, a fresh complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. Shri Hukam Chand, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala sent the complaint to the S.H.O., Sardar Police Station, Batala, saying that the matter was complicated and required investigation by the police. The police sent the complaint back, but the Magistrate did not agree and again directed the police for registration of the case. Consequently, a case was registered vide FIR No. 59, dated May 23, 1987, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, in Police Station City, Batala.

The petitioners in this petition have challenged the filing of the second complaint and the registration of the case based on that complaint. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second complaint is not competent on the same facts and cause of action. According to the learned counsel, when the first complaint was withdrawn and dismissed by the Magistrate, a second complaint on the next day on the same facts and cause of action could not be entertained and as the second complaint was not competent, the consequent registration of the case is also not warranted by law.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have heard the learned counsel for the respondents.

It is not disputed that the first complaint was dismissed and the second complaint was filed on the same facts and cause of action. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has not been able to support the entertainment of the second complaint on the same facts and cause of action under any provision of law. The order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the Magistrate whether on statement of the complaint or otherwise has the implication that the complaint was dismissed. A second complaint will not be competent.

After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate could not entertain the second complaint on the same facts and the subsequent registration of the case is not according to law. The order of the Magistrate dated May 15, 1987, and the consequential registration of the F.I.R. No. 59, dated May 23, 1987, are quashed.

JUDGMENT accordingly.