Second Complaint After Closure Report In 1st Complaint Can't Be Maintained By Adding New Offence For Same Incident : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that simply adding a new offence in a subsequent complaint concerning the same alleged incident after a closure report has already been filed in the original complaint, does not render the later complaint maintainable. “By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code...
The Supreme Court held that simply adding a new offence in a subsequent complaint concerning the same alleged incident after a closure report has already been filed in the original complaint, does not render the later complaint maintainable.
“By merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, and by the same informant, a second complaint through the invocation of Section 200 of the Code is certainly not maintainable.”, observed a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma while setting aside the Kerala High Court's decision, which had declined to quash a second complaint that merely added a new offence despite arising from the same alleged incident for which the original complaint had already led to a closure report.
It was the case where the Appellants had been named in an FIR but were subsequently dropped from the charge sheet after police filed a closure (negative) report. The de facto complainant never filed a protest petition before the Magistrate. The trial proceeded only against the remaining accused.
More than two-and-a-half years later, the same complainant filed a fresh private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, adding the offence of Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and sought to prosecute the appellants afresh. The Magistrate issued process, which the High Court upheld through a Section 482 Cr.P.C petition, prompting the Appellants to move to the Supreme Court.
Noting that the High Court committed an error while not quashing the complaint, the Court found the complainant act of filing a second complaint to be a gross abuse of 'process of law', adding that “the subsequent private complaint has been filed by the same informant, touching upon the same occurrence.”
The complainant relied on Surender Kaushik & Ors vs State Of U.P & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 148 to contend that in exceptional cases, a second complaint can be maintained. Rejecting this argument, the Court said that the precedent cited in fact supported the Appellants, as in that case the subsequent FIR was filed by a different complainant raising distinct allegations, a scenario entirely absent here.
“it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint.”, the court observed in Surender Kaushik supporting the Appellant's case.
An exception was carved out in Surender Kaushik's case to permit registration of more than one FIR if the allegations made in the subsequent complaint/FIR present a different version of the same incident.
“the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes, and in that event, the lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.”, the court said in Surender Kaushik's case.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the second complaint was quashed.
Cause Title: RANIMOL & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1148
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. M Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Tarun, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. K.P.Kylasanatha Pillay, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mrs. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv. Mr. N Narasimhamurthy, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.