A protest petition filed after a pending complaint is not barred as a second complaint.

The petitioner, a teacher from Arunachal Pradesh, had earlier lodged Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 97/2023 alleging rape, blackmail, criminal intimidation and related offences against Chandan Pathak, the brother of Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 1 subsequently lodged Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 450/2023 under Section 420 IPC, alleging that the petitioner had manipulated the hotel register to falsely show that his brother was present at the hotel on 15 February 2023.

The police submitted a final report in that case on 30 December 2023.

On 6 April 2024, Respondent No. 1 and his brother filed C.R. Case No. 272/2024 under Sections 200 and 210 CrPC, alleging defective investigation and seeking a fair investigation.

Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed a protest petition on 7 September 2024 challenging the final report. By order dated 9 September 2024, the Judicial Magistrate rejected the final report, accepted the protest petition and directed registration of a complaint case.

The resulting proceeding was registered as C.R. Case No. 616/2024 under Sections 195/384 IPC; cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 13 November 2024, followed by issuance of bailable warrants on 28 November 2024 and 20 January 2025.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 read with Sections 438 and 442 BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of C.R. Case No. 616/2024 and the consequential orders.

Whether the complaint filed on 7 September 2024, following submission of the police final report, was an impermissible second complaint or second protest petition in view of the earlier complaint case, C.R. Case No. 272/2024.

Whether the Magistrate’s order dated 9 September 2024 rejecting the final report and taking cognizance against the petitioner, along with the subsequent warrant orders, was legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Whether the principles governing successive complaints, as discussed in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy, Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury v. State of Assam and related authorities, barred the proceeding in the circumstances of the case.

The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, read with the provisions invoked by the petitioner, to examine whether continuation of the criminal proceeding amounted to abuse of process.

It applied the principle that, upon submission of a police final report, the informant should ordinarily be given notice before the report is considered.

Section 210 CrPC contemplates coordination between a complaint proceeding and a police investigation concerning the same offence, including staying the complaint proceeding and calling for the police report where the investigation is pending.

The Court relied on Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 702, for the proposition that there is no absolute statutory bar to a second complaint on the same facts, particularly where the earlier complaint has not been finally adjudicated on merits.

It distinguished Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury v. State of Assam, AIR 2024 SC 5690, where the final report had already been accepted after consideration of the protest petition and a subsequent complaint on the same allegations was held barred.

The Court found that C.R. Case No. 272/2024 was filed when Respondent No. 1 appeared to believe that the police investigation was still pending and that a closure report might subsequently be submitted.

The invocation of Section 210 CrPC and the prayer for a fair investigation indicated that he was not necessarily aware that the final report had already been filed.

The later protest petition, however, expressly challenged Final Report No. 4949/2023 and sought rejection of the Investigating Officer’s conclusion and cognizance of the offences.

The Court held that the two proceedings were materially different: the earlier case was a complaint alleging defective or incomplete investigation, whereas the later proceeding was a protest petition directed against the final report.

Since the earlier complaint had not been closed or finally decided on merits, the later protest petition could not be treated as a barred second complaint.

Consequently, the rule in Subrata Choudhury did not apply, while the principle in Mahesh Chand supported maintainability.

The two proceedings stood on different legal footings, and the protest petition was maintainable because the earlier complaint had not been finally adjudicated.

The order dated 9 September 2024 rejecting the final report and directing registration of the complaint, the order taking cognizance dated 13 November 2024, and the subsequent bailable-warrant orders were not found legally unsustainable.

The petition was accordingly dismissed and disposed of.