IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.10633 -M of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 10, 2011 JASWANT SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS PISHORA SINGH .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SL Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.40 dated 18.6.2006 (Annexure P-4), entitled 'Pishora Singh v. Jaswant Singh and others', pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34, Indian Penal Code. The petition also challenges order of summoning dated 24.8.2009 (Annexure P-5), vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B, 34, Indian Penal Code. 2 The facts are not in dispute, insomuch as learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in the complaint and respondent-complainant are ad-idem that in regard to the same Criminal Misc. No.10633 -M of 2010 (O&M) 2 incident/transaction, the respondent had earlier filed Criminal Complaint No.200 dated 2.5.2005 against the petitioners. The respondent brought evidence by way of exhibiting 25 documents by examining himself as CW-1. On consideration of the entire preliminary evidence led by the respondent, the trial Magistrate found that the complainant had miserably failed to make it appear to the court that the accused have committed the alleged offences. Considering the entire evidence, it has been deduced that no sufficient ground is made out to proceed against the accused. 3 On the same set of facts and circumstances, second complaint, impugned by way of the present petition, has been filed, in which the impugned summoning order has been issued. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once an issue has been raised and has been considered and adjudicated, second complaint is not maintainable and, therefore, an illegality and impropriety has been committed, resulting in abuse of process of the court. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Poonam Chand Jain and another v. Fazru, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 600. It has been pleaded on behalf of the respondent that second complaint is maintainable. It has been said that initially sufficient material was not brought before the court and, therefore, no impropriety has been committed. 6 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Criminal Misc. No.10633 -M of 2010 (O&M) 3 7 Para-9 of the judgment in Poonam Chand Jain's case (supra) reads as under:- “9. As was observed in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and another, 2003 (1) RCR (Crl.) 420 (SC) : 2003(1) SCC 734, there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reason, the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. But the second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings have been adduced. The second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further second complaint on the same facts would be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd or unjust.” 8 In brief, what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is that second complaint on the same facts would be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd or unjust. Criminal Misc. No.10633 -M of 2010 (O&M) 4 9 In the case in hand, as noticed above, the respondent brought evidence to court, to his capacity. Other than examining himself as CW-1, 25 documents were exhibited in an attempt to establish that the petitioners had committed the offences, as alleged. Having considered the entire issue, the trial court came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to make out a case that the alleged offences had been committed. 10 In such circumstances, clearly, the present case is not covered by the judgment rendered in Poonam Chand Jain's case (supra). 11 Since the impugned complaint has been filed in regard to the same set of facts and circumstances, surely, it would be an abuse of process of court and process of law to allow it to continue. There has to be a terminus to every lis. A litigant owes a duty towards judicial system also. A court cannot be asked to entertain one case after the other on the whims of the complainant. Having failed in the first attempt by virtue of bringing whatever evidence was available, second attempt is sought to be made by way of filing the impugned complaint. This would not be permissible in law, as it would be an abuse of the process of the court. 12 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 13 Criminal Complaint (Annexure P-4) and order of summoning (Annexure P-5) are hereby quashed. August 10, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?