1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2080­2083/2022

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.11601­11604/2022)

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.618/2020)

B.R.K. AATHITHAN                                   Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

SUN GROUP & ANR.                                   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

SURYA KANT, J.

Delay condoned.

2.Leave granted.

3.The appellant assails the Judgment and Order dated 30­08­2019

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench,

whereby the High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 of

the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (in   short,   `the   Cr.P.C.’)

filed by the respondents and quashed the Criminal Complaint viz.

STC No.45 of 2017, filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian

Penal Code, which the appellant had filed against the respondents.

4.Briefly stated, the facts are that First Information Report

No.345 of 2013 was registered against the appellant under Section

468   IPC   before   Tirucher   Taluk   Police,   Tutukodi   District   at   the

instant of an Advocate who alleged that the appellant had taken

huge   amounts   of   money   by   assuring   admission   to   candidates   in

various law colleges.

2

5.The   factum   of   registration   of   the   FIR   and   arrest   of   the

appellant in that case was tele­casted and published in the TV and

print media by the respondents.

6.The appellant having felt that the action of the respondents

amounted to criminal defamation, filed a Criminal Complaint under

Sections 499 and 500 IPC etc. which was, however, dismissed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate on 28­04­2015 by passing the following

Order:­

“Heard perused, it is alleged by the Petitioner that the

Respondents   broad­casted   and   published   defamation   against

the Petitioner. On perusal of the available material which

is revealed that the content of the Petitioner falls in the

Fourth   exception   of   U/s   499   of   IPC.   Hence,   there   is   no

prima facie  case made out against the Respondents for the

alleged offences. Hence, this Petition stands is dismissed.

7.The aggrieved appellant filed a Criminal Revision before the

High   Court   but   the   same   was   withdrawn   on   10­06­2015   in   the

following terms:­

“As   per   the   endorsement   made   by   the   learned   counsel

appearing   for   the   revision   petitioner,   this   revision

petition   is   dismissed   as   withdrawn   with   liberty   to   the

petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to

law.”

8.Thereafter,   the   appellant   filed   second   Criminal   complaint,

i.e, STC 45/2017 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Tiruchendur

which too was under the same provisions as was his first complaint.

9.It is hardly in dispute that the second complaint was replica

3

of   the   first   complaint   with   each   and   every   averments   being

identical except that in the second complaint, the appellant added

one   more   paragraph   No.11,   incorporating   the   factum   of   filing

Criminal   Revision   before   the   High   Court;   rejection   thereof   and

further claiming that he had filed a second complaint “as per the

order of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court”.

10.In the second complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate summoned

the   respondents   which   prompted   them   to   file   a   Petition   under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court, seeking quashing

of   the   said   complaint   primarily   on   the   ground   that   the   second

complaint   on   the   same   set   of   facts   and   circumstances   was   not

maintainable. Vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 30­08­2019,

the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents and

consequently, the second complaint filed by the appellant has been

quashed.

11.The High Court while reaching the said conclusion has held as

follows:­

“Keeping the above principles in mind, let me now consider

the issue. The averments made in the first complaint filed

by the respondent, coupled with the sworn in statements of

the   witnesses   were   fully   considered   by   the   learned

Magistrate.   On   considering   the   entire   materials,   the

learned   Magistrate   has   come   to   a   conclusion   that,   the

complaint squarely fall under fourth exception to Section

499 of IPC, he declined to issue the process to respondents

and  there  was  no  prima  facie  case  made   out  against   the

accused therein and dismissed the same. On a perusal of the

earlier order, it could be seen that the learned Magistrate

4

had duly applied his mind and on being satisfied that no

prima facia case was made out against the accused, as the

allegations  made  in  the  complaint  would  only   fall  under

Section 499 of IPC, and dismissed the complaint, and the

order has been passed upon full consideration of the entire

materials available on record, whether the order is correct

or   not   is   totally   a   different   issue.   Once   a   learned

Magistrate applied his mind on the materials available on

record and came to a conclusion that no prima facie case

was   made   out   against   the   accused   and   dismissed   the

complaint, another Judicial Magistrate cannot hold that the

earlier order passed by his predecessor is not valid, it

virtually amounts to reviewing the earlier order, which is

barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The only remedy available

to   the   complainant   is   to   challenge   the   same   before   the

appropriate   forum   and   get   that   order   set   aside.   In   the

present   case,   the   respondent/complainant   has   already

challenged   the   order   by   way   of   a   revision   before   this

Court, but, subsequently, he has withdrawn the revision and

the   revision   was   also   dismissed.   In   the     above

circumstances,  after  getting   the  revision  dismissed,  the

respondent/complainant cannot maintain another complainant

on the very same fact.”

12.The   High   Court   has   further   observed   in   Para   22,   to   the

following effect:­

“As already discussed above, the second complaint in the

instant case is replica of the facts set out in the first

complaint   and   no   fresh   facts   have   been   set   out   in   the

second complaint. The core issue in both the complaints are

one   and   the   same.   The   second   complaint   also   does   not

disclose   any   of   the   exceptional   circumstances   warranting

the entertainment of the complaint. The earlier complaint

5

wass   dismissed   after   full   consideration   of   the   entire

materials available on record, unless the order dismissing

the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. is set aside by

a competent forum, a second complaint is not maintainable”.

13.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as

well   as   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondents   and   gone

through the record.

14.There can be no quarrel that in view of the decisions of this

Court in “Pramantha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar ” AIR 1962

Supreme Court 876” and “ Shivshankar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and

Another” (2012) 1 SCC 130, the second complaint can be maintainable

in exceptional circumstances, depending upon the manner in which

the first complaint came to be dismissed. To say it differently, if

the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits

of   the   case   or   on   a   technical   ground   and/or   by   returning   a

reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or

when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon

such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time

when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not

have   possibly   lay   his   hands   to   such   facts   at   that   time,   an

exception can be made to entertain the second complaint.

15.These  principles,  however,   in  our  considered   view,   are   not

attracted to the facts circumstances of the case in hand. When the

first complaint was filed primarily under Sections 499 and 500 IPC,

the   Judicial   Magistrate   was   well   within   his   jurisdictional

competence to find out whether a  prima facie case for summoning the

6

accused was made out or not.

16.This   essentially   involved   application   of   judicial   mind   to

reach a definite conclusion as to whether or not the accused be

summoned.   In   the   instant   case,   the   learned   Judicial   Magistrate

having found that the allegations made by the appellant were in the

teeth of fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, he declined to issue

process to the respondents. Such dismissal cannot be said to be

without application of judicial mind. The application of judicial

mind   and   arriving   at   an   erroneous   conclusion   are   two   distinct

things. The Court even after due application of mind may reach to

an erroneous conclusion and such an order is always justiciable

before a superior Court. Even if the said Order is set aside, it

does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind.

17.The   appellant   took   a   chance   and   challenged   the   order   of

dismissal of his 1

st

 complaint before the High Court in a Criminal

Revision Petition. It is apparent from the contents of the Order

that no sooner the High Court expressed its reluctance to entertain

the Revision Petition on merits, the appellant withdrew the same to

work out his remedy as may be available in law. This Order cannot

be   construed   to   have   permitted   the   appellant   to   file   a   second

complaint on identical set of facts. The view taken by the High

Court  in  Para  No.19 and Para  No.  22 of  its  impugned Order,  as

reproduced above, thus, appears to be the correct statement of law.

18.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant then relies upon

the   Judgment   of   this   Court   in  “Subramanian   Swamy   Vs.   Union   of

7

India”  (2016)   7   SCC   221,   to   urge   that   the   onus   was   on   the

respondents to establish that the appellant’s first complaint was

barred by fourth exception to Section 499 of IPC.

19.It appears to us that such a contention was available to the

appellant before the High Court in Criminal Revision filed by him

challenging   the   order   of   dismissal   of   his   first   complaint.   The

appellant instead of withdrawing the Criminal Revision, ought to

have invited an order on merits including on the contention sought

to be raised now. As stated earlier, even if the order of learned

Judicial   Magistrate   while   dismissing   the   first   complaint   was

erroneous in law, it does not amount to non­application of mind by

the trial court.

20.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error in the

impugned Judgment dated 30­08­2019 passed by the High Court.

21.The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

..................J

(SURYA KANT)

.................J

                   (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

NEW DELHI; 

29TH NOVEMBER, 2022.