The appellant assails the Judgment and Order dated 30-08-2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, whereby the High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Cr.P.C.’) filed by the respondents and quashed the Criminal Complaint viz.
which was, however, dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 28-04-2015 by passing the following Order:- “Heard perused, it is alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondents broad-casted and published defamation against the Petitioner.
It is hardly in dispute that the second complaint was replica 3 of the first complaint with each and every averments being identical except that in the second complaint, the appellant added one more paragraph No.11, incorporating the factum of filing Criminal Revision before the High Court; rejection thereof and further claiming that he had filed a second complaint “as per the order of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court”. On considering the entire materials, the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that, the complaint squarely fall under fourth exception to Section 499 of IPC, he declined to issue the process to respondents and there was no prima facie case made out against the accused therein and dismissed the same. Once a learned Magistrate applied his mind on the materials available on record and came to a conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against the accused and dismissed the complaint, another Judicial Magistrate cannot hold that the earlier order passed by his predecessor is not valid, it virtually amounts to reviewing the earlier order, which is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
In the above circumstances, after getting the revision dismissed, the respondent/complainant cannot maintain another complainant on the very same fact.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-cheating-and-forgery-in-passport-case/
The High Court has further observed in Para 22, to the following effect:-
“As already discussed above, the second complaint in the instant case is replica of the facts set out in the first complaint and no fresh facts have been set out in the second complaint.
To say it differently, if the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on a technical ground and/or by returning a reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/discrepancy-in-date-of-birth-courts-legal-analysis/
When the first complaint was filed primarily under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, the Judicial Magistrate was well within his jurisdictional competence to find out whether a prima facie case for summoning the 6 accused was made out or not. It is apparent from the contents of the Order that no sooner the High Court expressed its reluctance to entertain the Revision Petition on merits, the appellant withdrew the same to work out his remedy as may be available in law. It appears to us that such a contention was available to the appellant before the High Court in Criminal Revision filed by him challenging the order of dismissal of his first complaint.
Case Title: B.R.K. AATHITHAN Vs. SUN GROUP (2022 INSC 1236)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002080-002083 / 2022
