THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5188/2005 Dt,16-7-2010 1. Tatineni Purna Prasad and another ..Petitioners V. 1. Medasani Ramesh Babu and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.5188/2005 ORAL ORDER This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-3 and A-5 in CC No.269/2005 on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashing the proceedings are that on a complaint filed by the first respondent herein earlier before P.S.,Penamaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 IPC, the police after due investigation filed a report before the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada stating that the dispute is of civil nature and also issued a notice to the complainant (first respondent herein) by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penamaluru P.S., Vijayawada City stating that if he wants to oppose the report he will do so before the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada; that the first respondent in stead of filing a protest petition filed the private complaint with the same allegations against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 alleging that the second respondent-A-1 committed forgery of the signature of his father, which fact has not to be enquired into by the police and therefore the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process; that the entire material does not make out any case against the petitioners and the first respondent-complainant who earlier filed suit and writ petition cannot resort to criminal prosecution, which is an abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The Supreme Court in MAHESH CHAND V. B. JANARDHAN REDDY[1] while observing that “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 reasons, the Magistrate under section 204 Cr. P. C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Further, 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. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter, therefore should have been remitted back to the learned magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence had been made out or not” set-aside the judgment of the High Court holding that a third complaint on the self same allegations was barred, and remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate who shall consider the matter afresh. Similarly, the Supreme Court in JATINDER SINGH V. RANJIT KAUR[2] held that when a Magistrate conducts an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismisses the complaint on merits, a second complaint on the same facts cannot be made unless there are very exceptional circumstances. Even so, a second complaint is permissible depending upon how the complaint happened to be dismissed at the first instance. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this court do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that filing of second complaint on the same set of facts cannot be maintained. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the allegations levelled in the complaint make out a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners? The allegations in the complaint disclose that A-1 forged unregistered will dt. 2-1-1980 and another unregistered will dt. 24-2-1981 with the signature of father of the complainant and they are in his custody; A-1 executed a sale deed on 4-9-2003 without consideration in favour of A- 2 and A-3 and it is a benami sale; all the accused to have a wrongful gain intentionally created forged wills and sale deeds in favour of A-2 to A-5; and A-3 and A-4 encouraged the activities of A-1. According to the complaint allegations, A-1 is the mother of the defacto-complainant and A-2 to A-5 are followers of A-1. His late father executed a registered will in favour of the complainant and A-1 relating to immovable properties situated in R.S.No.38/4 an extent of Ac.4-81 cents of wet land on 2-10-1979. Meanwhile, A-1 developed grudge against the complainant and his wife and in collusion with A-2 to A-5, A-1 forged the signatures of his father and created some false documents. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and three more witnesses on his side issued process. The Magistrate after satisfying himself that the accused committed a criminal offence, issued process against the petitioners and others. In that view of the matter, the complainant must be given an opportunity to substantiate his allegations levelled against the petitioners and others, and the same cannot be scuttled at the initial stage. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.16-7-2010 kmr [1] 2003(1) SCC 734 [2] 2001(2) SCC 570