Supreme Court Settles Law on Second Complaint Following Negative Final Report

Case Title: Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Citation: 2024 Law (SC) 856

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that a second complaint against a negative final report or charge sheet can be maintained, but only under specific circumstances. This decision came in the case of Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., where the Court examined the conditions under which a magistrate may entertain a second complaint.

Key Takeaways:

1. No Absolute Bar on Second Complaint: The Court held that a second complaint is not automatically barred if it arises from different core issues than the first. However, if both complaints are based on “almost identical facts,” then a second complaint is generally non-maintainable.
2. Exceptional Circumstances Required: A second complaint may only be filed if exceptional circumstances exist—such as if the previous complaint dismissal suffered from procedural or substantive infirmities.
3. Case Background:The complainant initially filed a complaint on 11.11.2010, alleging improper investigation, which was subsequently dismissed. A second complaint on 20.07.2011 essentially repeated the allegations of the first.The magistrate dismissed this second complaint as non-maintainable, reasoning that it reiterated the earlier complaint’s allegations without presenting new grounds or deficiencies in the initial investigation.
4. Court’s Observations: The Supreme Court noted that the second complaint did not introduce new facts or circumstances that would warrant a fresh investigation. The magistrate’s dismissal of the second complaint was upheld as it was grounded in legal principles that prevent repetitive complaints based on identical facts.
5. Impact of the Ruling:The Court clarified that while the second complaint is not entirely precluded, it will only be considered in “exceptional circumstances” where there are errors in the initial investigation or dismissal that directly impact the merits of the case.The judgment provides a clear guideline for magistrates to determine the maintainability of subsequent complaints in criminal proceedings.

Legal Representation:

• For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., among others.
• For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Ankit Roy, and team.

This ruling is pivotal as it upholds the balance between allowing due recourse for complainants while preventing the abuse of legal processes through repeated complaints.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.