Subsequent Complaint Based on Identical Cause of Action and Instruments is Impermissible and Liable to Be Quashed

The petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant (O.P. No. 2) on 09.04.2012 to sell a residential plot for Rs. 16.50 lakhs, receiving Rs. 15 lakhs as advance

The complainant later discovered the petitioner did not have power of attorney for the land. To refund the money, the petitioner issued several cheques which were allegedly snatched back or dishonored

The complainant initially filed Complaint Case No. 28589 of 2014 regarding the dishonor of three specific cheques

Subsequently, the complainant filed a second complaint (Complaint Case No. 29777 of 2014) based on the same set of facts and cheques

The Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna, took cognizance in the second complaint on 12.05.2015 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 352 IPC, and Section 138 of the N.I. Act

1. Whether a subsequent complaint case (No. 29777 of 2014) is maintainable when a prior complaint (No. 28589 of 2014) was already filed for the same cause of action and set of cheques

The Court applied the principle that a second complaint is not maintainable if it is based on the same cause of action and facts as a previously filed pending complaint

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhary alias Santosh Choudhary and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Another [2014 SCC OnLine SC 3126], which restricts multiple criminal proceedings for the same cause of action to prevent the abuse of the process of law

The Court noted that the first complaint (No. 28589 of 2014) was filed on 16.08.2014 concerning the dishonoring of cheques issued between 2013 and 2014

It found that the subsequent complaint (No. 29777 of 2014) arose from the exact same transaction, set of cheques, and grievance as the first

The complainant's counsel did not dispute the factual overlap between the two cases

The Court reasoned that permitting a second prosecution for an identical cause of action is legally impermissible and "bad in the eyes of law," as it leads to duplicity of proceedings

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 29777 (C) of 2014