FACTS

Appellants who own and possess his own house at Faridabad came into contract with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of respondent. Various sale deeds were signed and the respondent was given the impression that those sale deeds were registered in the names of appellants and respondent jointly. Respondent was even asked to put his thumb impression and was told that the land situated in village Mohammedpur will be transferred in their joint name.

CASES REFERRED WITH SIMILAR QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Anr. V. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar1 Jatinder Singh and Ors. V. Ranjit Kaur2 Mahesh Chand V. B. Janardhan Reddy and Anr.3

1 2

AIR 1962 SC 876 AIR 2001 SC 784 3 (2003) 1 SCC 734

1|Page

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: THE JOURNEY FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT

Sections involved: Code of Criminal Procedure, 197: Section 203 Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 120(B), 426

Complaint dismissed - Complainant filing Second complaint on same facts - Second complaint on almost identical facts first complaint dismissed on merits - Second complaint not maintainable Nothing disclosed in the second complaint which is substantially new and not disclosed in first complaint - An order of dismissed u/sec. 203 CrPC is no bar to the entertainment of second complaint as per SC judgment in Pramatha Nath Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar - Second complaint is not covered within circumstances explained in Pramatha Nath case Appeal allowed.

2|Page

OUTLINE OF THE CASE: A SYNOPSIS

An appeal was filed against the High Courts order. Further, the respondent filed a complaint before the Magistrate against the appellants under Sections 420/120B/426 IPC. It was dismissed. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court. It was dismissed. However, High Courts order was not challenged. In the meantime the appellants filed several suits some of which were filed by several companies against the respondent for permanent injunction and other relief. Thereafter, the suits were decreed. Later, another complaint was filed by the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on virtually the same facts. Further, the Magistrate summoned the appellants. Hence, the appellant appeared before the sessions Court. It allowed the appellants petition. Thus, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court. Later, the High Court directed the appellants to appear before the trial Court where appellants were given liberty to raise all the points and seek reconsideration of the order in accordance with Section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, the appellants filed an appeal before the Apex Court. It stated that the second complaint in this case was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and it was not maintainable. Moreover, it stated that a case could not be made out since the facts in both the complaints were almost identical and allowed the appeal.

3|Page