Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru

3. The main contention of the appellants before this Court is that without any colour of right the respondent herein repeatedly filed complaints on same facts and the High Court without proper appreciation of the facts and 1 the legal position allowed the revision petition of the respondent and caused a grave failure of justice.

4. The material facts are that a complaint was filed by the respondent in the court of judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh on or about 10.06.1992 alleging therein that the appellants who own and possess his own house at Faridabad came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent. In the complaint it was alleged that the respondent is an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land at village Mohammedpur for and on behalf of the appellants. Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres at Mohammedpur village.

5. The said complaint further alleges that various sale deeds were executed and registered and 2 respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly.

6. It is further alleged that the respondent was asked to put his thumb impression on the sale deeds and he was further assured that the land situated in village Mohammedpur, Nuh will be transferred in their joint names of appellants and the respondent.

7. According to the complaint, fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he allegedly filed a complaint in Chhitranjan Park police Station on 28.06.1991 but that police station failed to take any action inter alia on the ground that the entire thing took place beyond their territorial jurisdiction.

9. On such complaint the matter was taken up by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh and ultimately after a detailed analysis of factual and legal position, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class came to a conclusion on 13.01.1994 to the following effect:

12. The said order of dismissal of the suit became final since no attempt was made to challenge the same.

18. On such complaint the Magistrate passed an order summoning the appellants 1 and 2. Challenging the said order of summoning the appellants, the appellants moved a criminal revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon allowed the revision and the summoning order was set aside by an order dated 9.7.99. Against that order the respondent moved a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.552 of 2000 before the High Court and the Hon'ble High Court reversed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and directed the appellants to appear before the trial Court where appellants were given liberty to raise all the points and seek 8 reconsideration of the order in accordance with Section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code.

22. In the background of these facts, the question which crops-up for determination by this Court is whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.

27. Following the aforesaid principles which are more or less settled and are holding the field since 1962 and have been repeatedly followed by this Court, we are of the view that the second complaint in this case was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits. So the second complaint is not maintainable. This 15 Court finds that the core of both the complaints is the same. Nothing has been disclosed in the second complaint which is substantially new and not disclosed in first complaint. No case is made out that even after the exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the application of the first complainant. In fact such a case could not be made out since the facts in both the complaints are almost identical. Therefore, the second complaint is not covered within exceptional circumstances explained in Pramatha Nath (supra). In that view of the matter the second complaint in the facts of this case, cannot be entertained.

28. Unfortunately, the High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent. The order passed by the High Court in revision 16 jurisdiction cannot be sustained and is quashed. This appeal succeeds.

29. There shall be no order as to costs.