Kumaraiah And Others v. Chinna Naiker

This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Ramnad wish regard to C.C No. 64 of 1945 on the file of the Additional Sub-Magistrate of Aruppukottai. Notice has been given to the complainant and he has not appeared in this Court. He filed a complaint for dacoity, theft, etc. against the accused. That was investigated by the police and was finally thrown out under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was on the 23rd December 1944. On the 18th January 1945 the complainant presented another complaint against the same accused on the same facts. The accused objected to the preferring of the complaint. The Magistrate held that the dismissal of the prior complaint under section 203 was not a bar to the entertainment of the second complaint. The Additional District Magistrate is of the opinion that the order of the Sub-Magistrate was unsustainable as he had no jurisdiction to entertain the second complaint as the prior complaint has been dismissed and refers the case under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order of the Sub-Magistrate taking the complaint on file. The fact that a previous complaint was thrown out under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is no bar to the entertainment of the second complaint. But the question for consideration is whether on the facts stated it, will not be an abuse of process to take up the second complaint on the file and proceed with it. In the circumstances, of this case the original complaint was for theft dacoity etc and in the second complaint the charge of dacoity and theft were not pressed. There is nothing to indicate that there was no proper investigation on the previous complaint or that there was any necessity for investigating the second complaint. Even with regard to the offences in respect, of which the second complaint was pressed the Magistrate who dismissed the earlier complaint has pointed out that there was no disinterested witness to prove the complainant's allegation. The Magistrate was of the opinion that the evidence likely to be available could not possibly lead to a conviction. Nothing was alleged by the complainant in the second complaint which would justify the Magistrate modifying that view. No additional witness had been cited in the second complaint nor, as pointed out by the Additional Magistrate was it alleged that any other evidence had been discovered or was likely to be forthcoming. In these circumstances to entertain the second complaint would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the order entertaining the complaint is quashed.

N.T.R