The bench of Justice Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari of the Supreme Court recently ruled that if the first criminal complaint is dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on technical grounds, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint.
The bench was delaing with an appeal challenging the Judgement and Order passed by the Madras High Court that allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C filed by the respondents and quashed the complaint filed under Section 499 and 500 of the IPC.
In the case in hand, FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 468 IPC at the instant of an Advocate who alleged that the appellant had taken huge amount of money against the admission to candidates in various law colleges. The facts of registration of the FIR and arrest were telecasted and published in TV and Print media by the respondents.
The appellant having felt defamation, filed a complaint under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which was dismissed by the Magistrate.
The question that arose before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the order passed by the High Court needs interference or not?
The bench relied upon the case of Shivashankar Singh v. State of Bihar and Another, whereby it was stated that the second complaint can be maintained in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which the first complaint came to be dismissed.
Supreme Court observed that if the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on technical grounds 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 have possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint.
The bench opined that “the Judicial Magistrate having found that the allegations made by the appellant were in the teeth of fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, he declined to issue process to the respondents. Such dismissal cannot be said to be without application of judicial mind. The application of judicial mind and arriving at an erroneous conclusion are two distinct things. The Court even after due application of mind may reach to an erroneous conclusion and such an order is always justiciable before a superior Court. Even if the said Order is set aside, it does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind.”
Hence, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: B.R.K. AAthithan v. Sun Group & Anr.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and J.K Maheshwari
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.20802083/2022
0 Comments