Ranvir Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr

2. The Crl. Misc. No.598-M of 2005 was filed by the petitioner for quashing another complaint filed by the said Smt. Ved Wati on 29th September, 2003, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, issued process on 8th January, 2004. Both the Criminal Revision Petitions were taken up for hearing and disposal together by the High Court on 31st May, 2007, and were dismissed by a common judgment and order, which has been assailed in these Special Leave Petitions.

4. The petitioner also submitted that thereafter the complainant applied for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on four different occasions, but such sanction was not granted while the petitioner remained in service. The petitioner ultimately retired from service on 31st January, 2002. Immediately thereafter, on 8th April, 2002, the complainant filed the complaint mentioned hereinabove under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 8th April, 2002, which was entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, and process was issued on 16th April, 2003. The petitioner further submitted that the complaint filed on 8th April, 2002, on which process had been issued on 16th April, 2003, came to be dismissed on 24th July, 2003, for non-filing of process fee. The petitioner submitted that an application filed by the complainant on 18th September, 2003, for recall of the order dated 24th July, 2003, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Thereafter, yet another complaint was filed by Smt. Ved Wati on 29th 4 September, 2003, on the same grounds under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on which process was issued on 8th January, 2004. The petitioner submitted that having taken cognizance on the complaint filed by Smt. Ved Wati and the same having been dismissed for non-filing of process fee, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was no longer competent to take cognizance and issue process on a separate complaint on the same cause of action. According to the petitioner, the complaint filed on 29th September, 2003, was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court having regard to the fact that the earlier complaint on which cognizance had been taken was dismissed on account of non-filing of process fee.

13. The main question which emerges for decision in these special leave petitions is whether a second complaint on the same cause of action and between the same parties would lie, when an earlier application had been dismissed. In the instant case, the question is narrowed down further as to whether such a second complaint would be maintainable when the earlier one had not been dismissed on merits, but for the failure of the complainant to put in process fees for effecting service.

15. As far as the first complaint under Section 420/34 I.P.C. is concerned, the petitioner has not seriously questioned the order of the High Court rejecting the petitioner's prayer for quashing the same. The petitioner confined his case mainly to the complaint wherein the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and issued process under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite an 13 earlier complaint on the same ground and on the same set of facts having been dismissed earlier for non- filing of process fees.

16. We are unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, since the law with regard to the filing of a second complaint is now crystalised. It is well-settled that such a complaint is maintainable in different circumstances as enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar's case and Jatinder Singh's case (supra). We, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing both the Special Leave Petitions, since we are of the view that both the complaints are maintainable and the impugned judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference.

17. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.