Supreme Court: If Magistrate is taking cognizance of offence based on protest petition filed with additional material, it is to be tried as private complaint case

 Shri Vinod Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the CJM as also the High Court fell in error in taking cognizance Under Section 190(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition which was supported by affidavit of the complainant but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were filed along with the Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint. The submission was that once the CJM was relying upon additional material in the form of evidence produced by the complainant along with the Protest Petition then the only option for the CJM was to treat it as a complaint Under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and proceed accordingly. The said case could not have been continued as a State case and should have been treated as a private complaint. It was also submitted that it was open for the CJM to have rejected the police report submitted Under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure for closure and relying upon the material in the case diary, (in effect, the material collected during investigation) could have taken cognizance but once additional evidence was being relied upon which had been filed along with the Protest Petition then the only option open was to treat it as a private complaint and after following the due procedure in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure proceeded to take cognizance Under Section 190(1)(a) Code of Criminal Procedure. {Para 5}

7. We have carefully examined the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the CJM taking cognizance and summoning the police and we find that the CJM had actually taken into consideration not only the Protest Petition but also the affidavit filed in support of the Protest Petition as well as the four affidavits of witnesses filed along with the Protest Petition. It was based on consideration of such affidavits that the CJM was of the view that the investigation was not a fair investigation and these affidavits made out a prima facie case for taking cognizance and summoning the Accused.

9. In the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Anr.,   MANU/SC/0916/2019 : 2019:INSC:742 : (2019) 8 SCC 27 Justice K.M. Joseph, speaking for the Bench laid down the legal position relying upon previous judgments of this Court. In the said case the facts were quite similar to that of the present case where affidavits were filed along with the Protest Petition. The net result is that the Magistrate in the present case ought to have treated the Protest Petition as a complaint and proceeded according to Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2134 of 2024.

Decided On: 18.04.2024

Mukhtar Zaidi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: Vikram Nath, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0318/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court : The Magistrate can treat Application Seeking Further Investigation As Protest Petition

 It is true that the prescribed and appropriate

recourse for the appellant would have been to submit a

Protest Petition against the chargesheet filed by the

Investigating Officer, in which the second respondent was

not put up for trial for offences under Sections 376, 417

and 420 of IPC. The appellant, instead, moved an

application captioned as “under Section 173(8) of

Cr.P.C.” The averments made in that application reveal

that the appellant protested against deletion of charges

under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of IPC and she made an

endeavour to bring on record the material which would

prima facie establish the commission of these offences.

We fail to understand what prevented the Magistrate from

treating that application purportedly filed under Section

173(8) of Cr.P.C. as a Protest Petition and then decide

the same on merits. A technicality like the caption of

the application/petition could not be an impediment to

consider the substance thereof and then determine whether

or not the matter required further investigation so as to

find out the prima facie element of offences under

Sections 376, 417 and 420 of the IPC. Such a permissible

procedural recourse has been unfortunately overlooked by

the High Court as well. {Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.562 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No . 11685/202 2 )

XXX  Vs THE STATE 

Dated: February 02, 2024.

Print Page

Is a protest petition maintainable against a doctor if the police have filed a final report after obtaining an expert report?

 On these background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is well settled that if a case against the doctor is filed the requirement of proceeding further examination by the expert as held in the case of “Martin F. D’Souza V. Mohd. Ishfaq” reported in (2009) 3 SCC 1 wherein para 106 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“106. We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer For a (whether District, State or National) or by the criminal court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or the criminal court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee or doctors specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the  doctor/hospital concerned. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police officials not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew case, otherwise the policemen will themselves have to face legal action. {Para 5}

11. In the case in hand the learned Magistrate has chosen option no. 4 and doing so he has proceeded in accordance with law. Further, it transpires that the learned court has not taken care of judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Martin F. D’Souza(supra) as well as “ Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab” reported in 2005 (6) SCC 1.

12. In these two cases the concern of the court was that unnecessarily a bonafide action of any doctor may not be subject matter of civil wrong as well as criminal wrong and in that aspect in both the judgements it has been directed that the case will be proceeded against the doctors after taking expert opinion and the case in hand expert report was there which is contained in annexure-9 and thereafter final form was submitted. In that view of the matter the Court finds that proceeding further on the protest petition when the finding of the expert committee is in favour of the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

13. To put criminal law in motion by examining two witnesses is also deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Pepsi Foods Ltd. V. Special Judicial Magistrate’ (1998) 5 SCC 749.

14. In the case in hand, doctor has discharged his responsibility. The operation was successful. The patient was brought to the ward thereafter the condition of the father of father of the O.P. No.2 was deteriorated. In the case of Martin F. D’Souza(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted the facts that the courts and the Consumer Forum are not experts in medical science, and must not substitute their own views over that of specialists. It is true that the medical profession has to an extent become commercialized and there are many doctors who depart from their Hippocratic oath for their selfish ends of making money.

However, the entire medical fraternity cannot be blamed or branded as lacking in integrity or competence just because of some bad apples.

15. It is well known that inspite of best effort made by the doctor sometime they are not successful and this does not mean that doctor must be held guilty. The Court comes to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner is fully covered with the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Martin F. D’Souza(supra) as well as “ Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab” reported in 2005 (6) SCC 1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 588 of 2013

Dr. Vijay Kumar  Vs The State of Jharkhand

CORAM:MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

Dated: 22/03/2023

Print Page

Whether police can further investigate the criminal case even though Magistrate has issued Summary in said case?

 Let us now consider the submissions of the learned Senior

Advocate for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer is not justified in reinvestigating the offence in which the jurisdictional Magistrate has already accepted the “A” summary.

49. Reference to some of the provisions of the Code would be

necessary in the context of the contention of the learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the petitioner. Before we deal with the relevant provisions, at

the cost of repetition, it would be necessary to mention that “A” summary was

granted by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 16.4.2019. The said order reads

thus:

:ORDER:

1. The report submitted by DYSP is accepted.

2. “A” Summary as prayed for is granted.”

50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra) and

Gangadhar (supra) and in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. A.S. Peter (2008) 2 SCC 383

has held that when the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the

offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being

heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take

cognizance of the offence and issue process. In the facts of the case in hand,

admittedly, the informant was neither given any notice nor heard when the “A”

summary was granted. Even the aforesaid order was not communicated to the

first informant. The victim i.e. first informant, when became aware about the “A” summary, though some tweets as submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gupte, requested the State Government and Superior officer of police that the case should be properly and thoroughly investigated. 

On the instructions of superior officers of the Investigating Officer, the local Crime Investigation Branch, Alibaug filed a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate for conducting further investigation of the said offence and accordingly, intimated to the jurisdictional Magistrate that further investigation of the offence under section 173(8) of the Code is being carried out. The jurisdictional Magistrate recorded the endorsement as “seen and filed”. In this

context, it would be relevant to refer to section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus:

“SECTION 173 (8) CRPC

(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude

further investigation in respect of an offence after a

report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the

Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the

officer in charge of the police station obtains further

evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the

Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such

evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of

sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in

relation to such report or reports as they apply in

relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2).”

 

55. Thus, there is no manner of doubt in our minds that the State

Government can always direct a further investigation to the concerned policeofficers, as done in the present case.

 56. Insofar as the provision regarding grant of “A” summary is

concerned, the procedure thereof is mentioned under Rule 219 of the

Bombay Police Manual, 1959. Rule 219, dealing with final reports, more

particularly, clause (3) reads thus:

“RULE 219 (3) OF BOMBAY POLICE MANUAL

(3) The final report should be written up carefully by the officers incharge

of the Police Station personally and should be accompanied by

all the case papers numbered and indexed methodically. If the accused

has been released on bail, the Magistrate should be requested to cancel

the bail bond. He should also be requested to pass orders regarding the

disposal of property attached, unless any of the articles, e.g., blood

stained clothes, are required for further use in true but undetected

cases. A request should also be made to the Magistrate to classify the

case and to issue an appropriate summary of his order, viz:-

“A’ True, undetected (where there is no clue whatsoever about the

culprits or property or where the accused in known but there is no

evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate (for trial).

“B” Maliciously false.

“C” Neither true nor false, e.g., due to mistake ot fact or being of a

civil nature.

“Non-cognizable” Police investigation reveals commission of only

non-cognizable offence.”

(emphasis supplied)

57. Reading of clause (3) would indicate that “A” summary is

granted in a case where the offence is committed but the same is undetected,

in that, where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or property or

where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify the same for

being sent to the Magistrate (trial). The jurisdictional Magistrate has

classified the case and issued “A” summary in this case. Consequent upon

receiving instructions pursuant to the complaint made by the victim to the

superiors, the local Crime Branch intimated the jurisdictional Magistrate that

they want to the carry out further investigation in the offence.

58. The intimation thereon was given to the Magistrate who had

made an endorsement of “seen and file”. Not only that but even when the

application was made by the Investigating Officer for recording the

statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same

was recorded by the Magistrate. Their Lordships in the case of State of

Andhra Pradesh vs. A.S. Peter (supra) have in the context of section 173 of

Code of Criminal Procedure held that the law does not mandate taking prior

permission of Magistrate for further investigation. Their Lordships further

held that carrying out further investigation even after filing of chargesheet, is

a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further

investigation and reinvestigation. It is observed that whereas reinvestigation

without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.

59. We find that before carrying out the said investigation, the

Magistrate was intimated about the further investigation. Thereafter, even

the statements are recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure after obtaining permission from Chief Judicial Magistrate. In our

opinion, the further investigation cannot be termed as illegal and without

seeking permission of the Magistrate. The same is in consonance with the

power conferred by section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is

extracted hereinabove. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 4278 OF 2020

IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 4132 OF 2020

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami  Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Print Page

Whether police can further investigate the criminal case even without the permission of Magistrate?

 Their Lordships in the case of State of

Andhra Pradesh vs. A.S. Peter (supra) have in the context of section 173 of

Code of Criminal Procedure held that the law does not mandate taking prior

permission of Magistrate for further investigation. Their Lordships further

held that carrying out further investigation even after filing of chargesheet, is

a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further

investigation and reinvestigation. It is observed that whereas reinvestigation

without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 4278 OF 2020

IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 4132 OF 2020

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami  Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON: NOVEMBER 09, 2020.

Print Page

Whether accused can claim that they were discharged from offence if they were discharged from custody on application of investigating officer?

Now, so far as the submissions made on behalf of the Appellants herein relying upon the orders passed by the learned Magistrate dated 01.09.2016 and 28.10.2016 that once the Appellants herein were discharged by the learned Magistrate on an application submitted by the Investigating Officer/SHO and, therefore, thereafter it was not open to the learned Magistrate to summon the Accused to face the trial in exercise of power Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it appears that there is some mis-conception on the part of the Appellants. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the orders dated 01.09.2016 and 28.10.2016 cannot be said to be the orders discharging the Accused. If the applications submitted by the Investigating Officer/SHO and the orders passed thereon are considered, those were the applications to discharge/release the Appellants herein from custody as at that stage the Appellants were in judicial custody. Therefore, as such, those orders cannot be said to be the orders of discharge in stricto sensu. Those are the orders discharging the Appellants from custody. Under the circumstances, the submission on behalf of the Accused that as they were discharged by the learned Magistrate and therefore it was not open to the learned Magistrate to exercise the power Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to summon the Appellants to face the trial, cannot be accepted.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2019 

Decided On: 01.05.2019

Rajesh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0649/2019

Print Page

Supreme Court: Session Court should hear accused in revision petition against the dismissal of the protest petition

 The restoration of the complaint by the Additional Sessions

Judge was undoubtedly to the prejudice of the appellant. The right

of the appellant to be heard at this stage need not detain us any

further in view of Manharibhai (supra) observing as follows:

“53.. . . We hold, as it must be, that in a revision

petition preferred by the complainant before the

High Court or the Sessions Judge challenging an

order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint

under Section 203 of the Code at the stage under

Section. 200 or after following the process

contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the

accused or a person who is suspected to have

committed the crime is entitled to hearing by the

Revisional Court. In other words, where the

complaint has been dismissed by the Magistrate

under Section 203 of the Code, upon challenge to

the legality of the said order being laid by the

complainant in a revision petition before the High

Court or the Sessions Judge, the persons who are

arraigned as accused in the complaint have a right

to be heard in such revision petition. This is a

plain requirement of Section 401(2) of the Code. If

the Revisional Court overturns the order of the

Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the

complaint is restored to the file of the Magistrate

and it is sent back for fresh consideration, the

persons who are alleged in the complaint to have

committed the crime have, however, no right to

participate in the proceedings nor are they entitled

to any hearing of any sort whatsoever by the

Magistrate until the consideration of the matter by

the Magistrate for issuance of process. We answer

the question accordingly. The judgments of the

High Courts to the contrary are overruled.”

8. The impugned orders dated 6.03.2009 and 08.10.2007 are

held to be unsustainable in their present form. They are therefore

set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge,

Greater Mumbai to hear the revision application afresh after notice

to the appellant also and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking

order to his satisfaction.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2183 OF 2011

SUBHASH SAHEBRAO DESHMUKH Vs  SATISH ATMARAM TALEKAR

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Dated:June 18, 2020

Print Page

When protest petition has to be in format of criminal complaint?

In the case of Abhinandan Jha MANU/SC/0054/1967 (supra) also what was observed was 'it is not very clear as to whether the Magistrate has chosen to treat the protest petition as complaint.' This observation would not mean that every protest petition must necessarily be treated as & complaint whether it satisfies the conditions of the complaint or not. A private complaint is to contain a complete list of witnesses to be examined. A further examination of complainant is made Under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure If the Magistrate did not treat the protest petition as a complaint, the protest petition not satisfying all the conditions of the complaint to his mind, it would not mean that the case has become a complaint case. In fact, in majority of cases when a final report is submitted, the Magistrate has to simply consider whether on the materials in the case diary no case is made out as to accept the final report or whether case diary discloses a prima facie case as to take cognizance. The protest petition in such situation simply serves the purpose of drawing Magistrate's attention to the materials in the case diary and invite a careful scrutiny and exercise of the mind by the Magistrate so it cannot be held that simply because there is a protest petition the case is to become a complaint case.

43. We may also notice that in Veerappa and Ors. v. Bhimareddappa MANU/KA/0336/2001 : 2002 CriLJ 2150 (Karnataka), the High Court of Karnataka observed as follows:

From the above, the position that emerges is this: Where initially the complainant has not filed any complaint before the Magistrate Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but, has approached the police only and where the police after investigation have filed the 'B' report, if the complainant wants to protest, he is thereby inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance Under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a complaint. If it were to be so, the protest petition that he files shall have to satisfy the requirements of a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that should contain facts that constitute offence, for which, the learned Magistrate is taking cognizance Under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Instead, if it is to be simply styled as a protest petition without containing all those necessary particulars that a normal complaint has to contain, then, it cannot be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

44. Complaint is defined in Section 2(d) of the Code as follows:

(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;

45. If a protest petition fulfills the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required Under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. In this case, in fact, there is no list of witnesses as such in the protest petition. The prayer in the protest petition is to set aside the final report and to allow the application against the final report. While we are not suggesting that the form must entirely be decisive of the question whether it amounts to a complaint or liable to be treated as a complaint, we would think that essentially, the protest petition in this case, is summing up of the objections the second Respondent against the final report.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 2019 

Decided On: 09.07.2019

 Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Citation: (2019) 8 SCC 27: AIR 2019 SC 3482

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate should give opportunity to complainant to file Protest petition against non filing of chargesheet against some of accused

Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion
that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the
learned Trial Court nor the High Court have committed any error
in summoning the appellants herein to face the trial along with
other coaccused.
As observed hereinabove, the appellants
herein were also named in the FIR. However, they were not
shown as accused in the challan/chargesheet.
As observed
hereinabove, nothing is on record whether at any point of time
the complainant was given an opportunity to submit the protest
application against non filing of the chargesheet against the
appellants. In the deposition before the Court, P.W.1 and P.W.2
have specifically stated against the appellants herein and the
specific role is attributed to the accusedappellants
herein.
Thus, the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 before the Court can be
said to be “evidence” during the trial and, therefore, on the basis

of the same and as held by this Court in the case of Hardeep
Singh (supra), the persons against whom no chargesheet
is
filed can be summoned to face the trial. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that no error has been committed by the Courts below to
summon the appellants herein to face the trial in exercise of
power under Section 319 of the CrPC.
9. Now, so far as the submissions made on behalf of the
appellants herein relying upon the orders passed by the learned
Magistrate dated 01.09.2016 and 28.10.2016 that once the
appellants herein were discharged by the learned Magistrate on
an application submitted by the Investigating Officer/SHO and,
therefore, thereafter it was not open to the learned Magistrate to
summon the accused to face the trial in exercise of power under
Section 319 of the CrPC is concerned, it appears that there is
some misconception
on the part of the appellants. At the
outset, it is required to be noted that the orders dated
01.09.2016 and 28.10.2016 cannot be said to be the orders
discharging the accused. If the applications submitted by the
Investigating Officer/SHO and the orders passed thereon are
considered, those were the applications to discharge/release the

appellants herein from custody as at that stage the appellants
were in judicial custody. Therefore, as such, those orders
cannot be said to be the orders of discharge in stricto sensu.
Those are the orders discharging the appellants from custody.
Under the circumstances, the submission on behalf of the
accused that as they were discharged by the learned Magistrate
and therefore it was not open to the learned Magistrate to
exercise the power under Section 319 of the CrPC and to
summon the appellants to face the trial, cannot be accepted.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we
see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court confirming the order passed by
the learned Magistrate summoning the accusedappellants
herein to face the trial in exercise of the power under Section
319 of the CrPC. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 813 OF 2019

Rajesh  Vs  State of Haryana .

Dated:MAY 1, 2019.

Print Page

Whether second protest petition is maintainable?

On going through the above said observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining the second complaint or even second protest petition before the Court in order to administer complete justice between the parties and opportunity to be given to the complainant to file necessary additional protest petition or by means of private complaint to bring the factual aspects before the Court in order to enable the Court whether it can proceed against the accused or not.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (KALABURAGI BENCH)

Criminal Petition No. 201225/2015

Decided On: 22.04.2016

 Rajeshwari

Vs.

 The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)17 KAR

Print Page

Whether second protest petition and second complaint case is maintainable?

It is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient 

material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit.

14. The Protest Petition can always be treated as a complaint and proceeded with in terms of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in case there is no bar to entertain a second complaint on the same facts, in exceptional circumstances, the second Protest Petition can also similarly be entertained only under exceptional circumstances. In case the first Protest Petition has been filed without furnishing the full facts/particulars necessary to decide the case, and prior to its entertainment by the court, a fresh Protest Petition is filed giving full details, we fail to understand as to why it should not be maintainable.

Supreme Court of India

Shiv Shankar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr. on 22 November, 2011

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, T.S. Thakur

Print Page