B.R.K. AATHITHAN vs. SUN GROUP

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 Signature Not Verified instant of an Advocate who alleged that the appellant had taken Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2022.12.16 20:33:24 IST Reason: 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 The aggrieved appellant filed a Criminal Revision before the High   Court   but   the   same   was   withdrawn   on   10­06­2015   in   the following terms:­ “As   per   the   endorsement   made   by   the   learned   counsel appearing   for   the   revision  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 st dismissal of his 1  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.