Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice M. Shantanagoudar of the SC, considered the matter relating to a subsequent complaint that can be filed even if the proceedings relating to the same matter has been quashed. In Om Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar it was held that a subsequent complaint can be filed when new facts have been disclosed after the proceedings are done.
BACKGROUND
Ira Sinha lodged a complaint against Logotech, from where she bought a random access full- automatic analyser model “Miura 200”. In the complaint it was stated that the machine was not working properly and the same was complained to the officials of Logotech, no services were provided from their side even after several complaints were made by the purchaser. A charge sheet was filed against the company under several provisions of Indian Penal Code and was quashed by the Patna High Court.
Ira Sinha contacted the manufacturer of the machine which is in Italy and stated her grievances. The manufacturers sent their technical experts to investigate the problems, it was discovered that all the parts of the machine were replaced by the duplicate parts. The experts issued a report for the same. The second complaint was filed stating that when the Logotech received the information regarding the service report, threatening calls were received by the complainant. In threatening calls the officials of Logotech asked to give the copy of report to them or else the life of the complainant would be in dire situation. Even the officials tried to shoot the complainant and take the report in their possession.
The petition was filed in the HC by the accused stating that the subsequent complaint must be quashed as the proceedings related to the matter has already being heard. The HC ruled in the favour of the accused.
The matter went to the apex court and it was stated “ the subsequent complaint was based on new set of allegations as have been mentioned in the earlier FIR. Earlier the complaint was about non- functioning of the machine and carelessness of the respondents. At that time appellant and his wife were not aware of the original parts been replaced by duplicate parts.” The bench said the CJM was justified in taking cognisance of the matter. The bench emphasised the decision given in Udai Shankar Awasthy v. State of UP, it was held that a second complaint can be lodged on the same facts provided the earlier complaint was decided on insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint, or where the new facts were discovered after the proceedings has taken place.
Thereupon the HC verdict was set aside by the SC stating that few facts were disclosed after the proceedings were completed. Therefore the subsequent compliant cannot be quashed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824