# Vishal Kumar Saroj v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1123
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 3721 of 2021
- **Bench:** Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishal-kumar-saroj-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53916
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

1 All. Vishal Kumar Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1123

21. However, the trial court is directed to release the applicants on the personal bonds already
furnished by them as they are very old and infirm. In case appearance of the applicants is required
for framing of charges and other proceedings, the trial court is directed to take the assistance of
video conferencing. The trial will be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law without
giving any unnecessary adjournments.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1123
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3721 of 2021

Vishal Kumar Saroj ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to maintainability of second complaint after rejection of protest petition in first FIR.

Headnotes
Maintainability of second complaint-Brothers and father of the applicant were brutally murdered by the
brother and nephew of opposite party no.2- FIR was lodged- out of retaliation-opposite party no.2 filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.- FIR- final report was filed- protest- rejected- Criminal Revision -
dismissed -opposite party no.2 also moved an application for further investigation before the Chief Minister of
U.P.- the matter was inquired -report submitted that final report was filed after fair investigation-the opposite
party no.2 filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate on the same very incident which was mentioned in
the FIR lodged by opposite party no.2- summon issued-under challenge- once the negative report/final report
on the original complaint was accepted after rejecting the written objection/protest petition-on the same set
of facts, complaint under Section 2(D) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as second complaint. Application allowed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Subrata Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary & others Versus The State of Assam & another, 2024 INSC 834
2. Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha, 2024 INSC 46
3. Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 INSC 399
4. Amar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 7 SCC 69
5. Ramjas Foundation and another vs. Union of India and others (2010) 14 SCC 38
6. Smt. Ramendri vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/s 482 No.5094 of 2021), decided on 24.2.2022
7. Yogeshwar Raj Nagar and another vs. State of U.P. and another -Matters Under Article 224 No.4173 of
2018-Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:31994.
8. Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Another, (2003) 1 SCC 734
9. Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1015 of 2019 SLP (Crl.) No.9654 of 2017- decided
on 09.07.2018
10. Samta Naidu v. State of M.P., 2020 (1) ACC 660 (SC)

List of Acts
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Indian Penal Code,1860
2. Code of Criminal procedure,1973
List of Keywords
Criminal complaint; Protest petition; second complaint; maintainable

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalji Yadav, Arun Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ashish Kumar Maurya,
Sushil Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Sinha along with Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2.

2. This application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated
10.1.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, as
well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint No.188 of 2017, under Sections 323, 325, 326,
504, 506 I.P.C. (Anil Singh vs. Vikas and others), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh as well as order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, by which bailable warrant
was issued against the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2015, brothers and father of the applicant were
brutally murdered by the brother and nephew of opposite party no.2 and an FIR was lodged by the
applicant. After lodging the said FIR, out of retaliation, opposite party no.2 filed an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging the FIR against the applicant and 15 other persons and in
pursuance of the direction of the court, FIR was lodged at Case Crime No.344 of 2015 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308, 324, 326 I.P.C. at Police Station Lalganj, District
Pratapgarh. The investigation was concluded and final report was filed by the Investigating Officer
before the court. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 moved a protest application before the Magistrate
against the said FIR. After considering the objections, the Magistrate passed an order on 8.4.2017,
accepting the final report submitted by the police. Against the order dated 8.4.2017, opposite party
no.2 filed Criminal Revision No.111 of 2017 before the court of Sessions, which has also been
dismissed on 01.08.2023. The opposite party no.2 also moved an application for further
investigation before the Chief Minister of U.P., who directed the Director General of Police, U.P.,
to take appropriate action on the said application. The matter was inquired by the Superintendent of
Police, Kaushambi, who had submitted a report on 27.6.2016 mentioning that final report was filed
after fair investigation. The opposite party no.2 filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate on
17.11.2017 on the same very incident, which was mentioned in the FIR lodged by opposite party
no.2 and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summon has been
issued which is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the opposite party no.2 has filed
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. raising his grievance and concerned court considered the
same and directed for lodging the first information report and thereafter by the order of the Court,
1 All. Vishal Kumar Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1125
Circle Officer investigated the matter and has submitted the final report against which, opposite
party no.2 filed protest application on oath wherein he again raised the same grievance and the
competent court was pleased to consider his grievance and passed the order dated 08.04.2017
thereby accepted the final report by holding that the investigation does not suffer from any
infirmity, then applicant cannot file complaint on the same set of facts. He further submits that the
revision filed by the opposite party No.2 against the order dated 08.04.2017 has also been
dismissed on merit by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Pratapgarh.

5. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in Paras 18, 27, 30 & 32 of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary &
others Versus The State of Assam & another, 2024 INSC 834 has held that once the negative
report/final report on the original complaint was accepted after rejecting the written
objection/protest petition then on the same set of facts, complaint under Section 2(D) Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable as second complaint. He further submits that opposite party No.2 has filed the
complaint dated 17.11.2017, in which he has not disclosed the material facts and this Court as well
as the Supreme Court in different cases held that if any person did not approach the court with
clean hands, he cannot be entitled for any relief. It has been further submitted that the complaint of
the opposite party No.2 is based on suppression of material facts as well as second complaint as
held by the Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary (supra),
therefore the complaint and proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed.

6. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the cases of Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha, 2024 INSC 46; Rekha
Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 INSC 399; Amar
Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 7 SCC 69; Ramjas Foundation and another vs.
Union of India and others (2010) 14 SCC 38; Subrata Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary &
others Versus The State of Assam & another, 2024 INSC 834. He has also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Smt. Ramendri vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/s 482
No.5094 of 2021), decided on 24.2.2022; and Yogeshwar Raj Nagar and another vs. State of U.P.
and another (Matters Under Article 224 No.4173 of 2018)(Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:31994.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the applicant and has submitted that the respectful submission of opposite party
no.2/complainant in his criminal complaint, under Chapter XV and Chapter XVI of Cr.P.C.,
referable to Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., is that the second Final Report/Closure Report
dated 07.01.2017 in FIR/Police Case Crime No.344 of 2015, P.S. Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, and
the filing of a protest application by opposite party no.2 against the said second Final
Report/Closure Report, as well as the order dated 08.04.2017 accepting the Final Report/Closure
Report, would not acquire the character of a criminal complaint within the meaning of Chapter XV
and Chapter XVI of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that a criminal complaint contemplates an enquiry or
trial by the Court itself into an offence, including examination of witnesses in support of the
complaint and consideration of other materials such as documentary and medical evidence. The
order passed by the Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. (dismissal of complaint) or under Section
204 Cr.P.C. (issuance of process) is a judicial order passed by a trial court in the exercise of its
judicial wisdom. Such an order cannot be equated with the acceptance of a Final Report/Closure
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Report and protest application, as the conclusion of the Investigating Officer accepted by the
Magistrate does not acquire the character of res judicata. Therefore, the Final Report/Closure
Report and protest application cannot be termed as a first criminal complaint, and consequently,
when a regular criminal complaint is filed by the complainant, the same cannot be termed as a
second criminal complaint.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that the power and
jurisdiction exercised by the Magistrate while considering a police report, particularly a Final
Report/Closure Report submitted by the Investigating Officer, is not based upon deposition of
witnesses in the witness box. It is submitted that in a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
the statements recorded before the Court under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. constitute evidence
within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act. In contrast, the material collected by the
Investigating Officer in the case diary and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(Section 180 BNSS) do not constitute evidence. At best, such material can be termed as
investigative material, to which no legal evidentiary value can be attached. Even the protest
application filed by the first informant does not acquire the character of evidence. Thus, there is a
vast difference between a police case diary and a criminal complaint, and the statements recorded
during enquiry or trial under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. stand on a much higher pedestal than
the material collected during investigation.

9. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that the jurisdiction
exercised by the Magistrate while considering the Final Report/Closure Report submitted by the
police and the protest application filed by the first informant is administrative in nature.He further
submits that in the present case, the order dated 08.04.2017 passed by the Magistrate accepting the
Closure/Second Final Report reflects perversity, particularly in respect of the injuries suffered by
five injured persons, as noted by Dr. A.K. Gupta, who recorded injuries caused by a sharp-edged
weapon. Despite this, the Magistrate treated the injuries of injured Ajay Singh (injury nos. 2 and 3)
and injury no.1 of injured Vivek in a casual manner, without proper appreciation, thereby
demonstrating a perverse approach. It is further submitted that the Magistrate did not consider the
medical reports submitted by Swaroop Rani Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj, and recorded
findings based on a perverse interpretation of the FIR, although the Magistrate himself referred to
the Investigating Officer s report noting the existence of a cross-case.

10. It is further submitted that the Magistrate, in his order dated 08.04.2017, relied upon the
alleged statement of the Deputy Superintendent of Police favouring the accused persons, without
considering its relevance. The statement of the Deputy S.P. was recorded nearly three months after
the incident, and therefore, its relevance to the offence is questionable. The Magistrate appears to
have been influenced by the delay in filing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the order dated 08.04.2017 accepting the Final Report/Closure Report cannot be
termed as a well-reasoned order. The Magistrate also failed to correctly consider the protest
application dated 29.03.2017 filed by opposite party no.2. It is thus submitted that the acceptance of
the Final Report/Closure Report dated 08.04.2017 and the dismissal of the criminal revision on
01.08.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Pratapgarh, would not create any hurdle in
filing the present criminal complaint under Chapter XV and Chapter XVI of Cr.P.C., referable to
Section 200 Cr.P.C.
1 All. Vishal Kumar Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1127

11. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Another, (2003) 1 SCC 734, and
has submitted that the Supreme Court held that even after dismissal of a criminal complaint under
Chapter XV of Cr.P.C., a second criminal complaint on the same facts would not be barred if the
previous order of dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was passed on an incomplete record, on a
misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or where the order was manifestly erroneous. A
second complaint would be barred only where the previous complaint was dismissed after full
consideration on merits. In the said case, the complainant initially lodged an FIR and during
investigation filed a criminal complaint. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final
Report dated 29.07.1997 before the Magistrate. The complainant also filed a protest application,
whereupon the Magistrate accepted the Final Report and simultaneously considered the
complainant's criminal complaint. Subsequently, a criminal complaint dated 08.11.2002 under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed, in which the accused were summoned. The accused challenged the
proceedings by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, which held that the complaint was barred as a second complaint.

12. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also placed reliance upon Vishnu Kumar
Tiwari v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1015 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9654 of
2017), decided on 09.07.2018. In the said case, the Supreme Court held in paragraph 51, while
taking note of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, that the complainant could very well
file a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In the said case, the complainant had filed an
FIR under Section 304-B IPC. The Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report, which was
accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate after dismissal of the protest application. The criminal
revision filed by the complainant was also dismissed. A writ petition filed before the High Court
was allowed, but the said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
held that the High Court was incorrect in holding that the protest application was not considered.
However, in paragraph 51 of the judgment, the Supreme Court clearly observed that the
complainant was at liberty to file a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., despite
acceptance of the Final Report and dismissal of the protest application.

13. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury (supra), relying upon Samta Naidu v. State
of M.P., 2020 (1) ACC 660 (SC), is based on different facts. In Samta Naidu (supra), the first
criminal complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., after full consideration on merits,
concluding that no prima facie case is made out against the accused-Samta Naidu & Dileep Naidu.
Thereafter, second Criminal Complaint Case No.9296 of 2014 was filed by complainant on the
same allegation. The Supreme Court held on the basis of previous judgments of the Supreme Court
that if the first complaint has been disposed off on full consideration of the case of criminal
complaint on merits, then the second criminal complaint on the same facts and same allegations
would be barred and would not be maintainable. However, in Subrata Choudhury (supra), the
factual matrix involved registration of an FIR, submission of a Final Report, filing of a protest
application, acceptance of the Final Report, and dismissal of revision, after which the informant
chose to file a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the Supreme Court
judgment dated 05.11.2024 did not consider the three-Judges' Bench decision in Mahesh Chand
1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(supra). Therefore, the judgment in Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury (supra) cannot be
applied to the present case and this application deserves to be dismissed.

14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh
Chourdhury (supra) has been pleased to held in Para-21 that in view of dismissal of the first
complaint after considering the protest petition and hearing the complainant, the second complaint
filed by the second respondent was not maintainable. The Supreme Court has also considered the
judgment of Mahesh Chand (supra) and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the second
complaint is not maintainable.

15. The factual backdrop in the case of Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra)
is relevant to be noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final report on 06.06.2011
after hearing the complainant's protest. On 20.07.2011, the second respondent filed the second
complaint with the same set of allegation against the appellant. In Paras 21, 27, 30 and 32, the
Supreme Court held:

"21. The appellants herein contended that the second complaint carries the same set of
allegations and in view of the dismissal of the first complaint after considering the protest petition
and hearing the complainant, the second complaint filed by the second respondent dated
20.07.2011 is not maintainable. To buttress the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the
decisions of this Court in Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., H.S. Bains v. State (Union
Territory of Chandigarh), Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh and Poonam Chand Jain v.
Farzu.

27. Now, we will have to proceed with the appeal bearing in mind the exposition of law
in Samta Naidu's case (supra) that if earlier disposal of the complaint was on merits and in a
manner known to law, the second complaint on almost identical facts which were raised in the
first complaint would not be maintainable. If the core of both the complaints is same, the second
complaint ought not to be entertained, it was further held therein. In the light of the factual
narration with respect to the disposal of the original complaint dated 11.11.2010, made
hereinbefore and in view of the courses open to a Magistrate on receipt of a negative report and
applying the exposition of law in Samta Naidu's case (supra) with respect to the maintainability of a
second complaint we have no hesitation to hold that the maintainability of the second complaint
dated 20.07.2011 filed by the second respondent would depend upon the question whether the core
of the original complaint dated 11.11.2010 and the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 is the same
as the disposal of the complaint dated 11.11.2010 was on merits and in a manner known to law. In
this context, it is also to be noted after considering the final report, the protest complaint and
admittedly, upon hearing the counsel for the complainant the protest petition was rejected not only
by finding that the investigation suffers from no infirmity but also by finding that since it was
conducted properly, no order for further investigation is invited and further that the materials are
not sufficient to take cognizance. As noted earlier, despite the said nature of the order dated
06.06.2011 the second respondent-complainant has not chosen to challenge the same but, chosen
only to file a fresh complaint, viz., the second complaint dated 20.07.2011.
1 All. Vishal Kumar Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1129

30. We have already referred to the manner the original complaint was disposed of
earlier. The submissions made on behalf of the parties, the documents annexed thereto and above
all, the order dated 12.07.2012 of the learned CJM, would reveal that the second complaint was
filed on the same set of facts contained in the first complaint and the second one was filed after the
dismissal of the protest petition and the consequential acceptance of the Final Report in the first
complaint. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the rejection of the protest petition and acceptance
of the Final Report (Annexure P-5) as per order dated 06.06.2011, the matter was not taken forward
further by the respondent/complainant. The second complaint was filed thereafter on 20.07.2011
reiterating, rather, reproducing the complaint dated 11.11.2010 and further adding allegations,
virtually made by way of the protest petition dated 05.05.2011 that the investigation pursuant to the
original complaint was done perfunctorily. It is to be noted that the said allegation against the
investigation was also rejected earlier as per order dated 06.06.2011 holding that the investigation
did not suffer from any infirmity and further that it did not deserve further investigation. Now, a
comparison of the first complaint dated 11.11.2010 and the second complaint dated 20.07.2011
shows that they contain the same set of allegations against the same accused as has been observed
by the learned CJM in the order dated 12.07.2012. The learned CJM, in the order dated 12.07.2012
after referring to various decisions observed and held thus:-

"After the original complaint has been duly investigated by the police and Final
Report submitted therein has been accepted by the Court in a Judicial Proceeding; therefore, in my
considered view it cannot be re-opened by the means of filing of a second complaint in respect of
the same facts and circumstances. In this connection, reliance can be placed n (Sic : in) a Judgment
of the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1981 Cri LJ 795 Bhuveneswar Prasad Singh v. State of
Bihar.

The Hon'ble Patna High Court relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in AIR 1968 SC 117 Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra had held-

Where the Final Report by police holding the case against the accused persons to be
untrue; was accepted by the Magistrate earlier, than the complaint petition was filed against the
accused, the Magistrate would not be justified in taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint
petition in respect of the same facts constituting the offence which were mentioned in the final
form where a Judicial order was passed by accepting final form."

32. In the context of the contentions, it is to be noted that the case at hand stands on a
firmer footing than the case involved in Samta Naidu's case (supra). Paragraph 16 of Samta Naidu's
case (supra), as extracted above, would reveal that the earlier complaint involved in that case was
disposed of not on technical ground but on finding that no prima facie case was made out and in the
second complaint the nature of the supporting materials were furnished and this Court observed
that it could not be said that those materials furnished and relied upon in the second complaint
could not have been procured earlier. Thereafter, finding that both the complaints were identical the
finding of the High Court that the second complaint was maintainable was rejected and the subject
complaint was dismissed as not being maintainable. In the case at hand, a perusal of protest petition
dated 05.05.2011 and the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 would reveal that the second
complaint filed after acceptance of final report filed pursuant to the investigation in the FIR
registered based on the complaint dated 11.11.2010, that too after considering the narazi petition
and hearing the complainant (the second respondent herein) the second complaint dated 20.07.2011
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been filed reproducing the first complaint dated 11.11.2010 and stating that the said complaint
was not properly investigated and action should be taken on the second complaint dated
20.07.2011. In fact, the indubitable position is that the core of the original complaint dated
11.11.2010 and the second complaint dated 20.07.2011 is the same."

16. Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has invited attention of the Court to
Para-24 of the judgment of Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra) and has
submitted that the law laid down in the case of Samta Naidu (supra) has been considered by the
Supreme Court and Para-12 of the said case, which is quoted in the judgment of Subrata
Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra) has been pointed out to the extent that it is settled law
that second complaint can lie only on fresh facts or even on the previous facts only if a special case
is made out. There is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which debars the applicant for
preferring a complaint on the same allegation if the first complaint did not result in a conviction or
acquittal or even discharge. The Court has also considered the said issue wherein it is observed that
in Pramatha Nath Talukdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876, there is no bar to entertain a
second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances.

17. In the case of Mahesh Chand (Supra), a fact is again relevant to be mentioned that the
appellant in that case filed protest petition on 02.09.1998 against the final report submitted by the
Investigating Officer in FIR under Sections 420, 426, 447, 448 IPC. The complaint filed by the
appellant was closed and the said order was not not questioned by him. On 8.11.2002, the third
complaint was filed by the appellant herein purported to be under Section 200 Cr.P.C. whereupon
summons were issued upon the respondent. The Supreme Court in the said case has held that it is
settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing second complaint on the same facts where the
previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of the nature of the
complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable
diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. The same
can be looked into in the second complaint. In Paras 15 and 19, the Supreme Court held:

"15. The learned Judge posed the question as to what would be those exceptional
circumstances. Noticing the decisions in Queen Empress v. Dolegobind Dass [ILR (1901) 28 Cal
211 : 5 CWN 169] , In re, Koyassan Kutty [AIR 1918 Mad 494 : 18 Cri LJ 329] , Kumariah v.
Chinna Naicker [AIR 1946 Mad 167 : 47 Cri LJ 595] and several other decisions, the learned Judge
came to the conclusion: (AIR p. 889, paras 22-23)

"It will be noticed that in the test thus laid down the exceptional circumstances are
brought under three categories: (1) manifest error, (2) manifest miscarriage of justice, and (3) new
facts which the complainant had no knowledge of or could not with reasonable diligence have
brought forward in the previous proceedings. Any exceptional circumstances coming within any
one or more of the aforesaid three categories would fulfil the test. In Ram Narain v. Panachand Jain
[AIR 1949 Pat 256 : 50 Cri LJ 524 : ILR 27 Pat 986] it was observed that an exhaustive list of the
exceptional circumstances could not be given though some of the categories were mentioned. One
new category mentioned was where the previous order of dismissal was passed on an incomplete
record or a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint. This new category would perhaps fall
with the category of manifest error or miscarriage of justice.
1 All. Vishal Kumar Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1131

It appears to me that the test laid down in the earliest of the aforesaid decisions, Queen
Empress v. Dolegobind Dass [ILR (1901) 28 Cal 211 : 5 CWN 169] , is really wide enough to
cover the other categories mentioned in the later decisions. Whenever a Magistrate is satisfied that
the previous order of dismissal was due to a manifest error or has resulted in a miscarriage of
justice, he can entertain a second complaint on the same allegations even though an earlier
complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Yet again in Bindeshwari Prasad case [(1977) 1 SCC 57 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 33 : (1977) 1
SCR 125] this Court followed Pramatha Nath Talukdar case [AIR 1962 SC 876 : 1962 Supp (2)
SCR 297 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 770] holding: (SCC p. 59, para 4)

"[I]t is now well settled that a second complaint can lie only on fresh facts or even on the
previous facts only if a special case is made out."

19. Keeping in view the settled legal principles, we are of the opinion that the High Court
was not correct in holding that the second complaint was completely barred. It is settled law that
there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous
complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Section 204 CrPC may
take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. As held
in Pramatha Nath Talukdar case [AIR 1962 SC 876 : 1962 Supp (2) SCR 297 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ
770] second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant
in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further, second complaint on the same
facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was
passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was
manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been
brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. In the facts and circumstances
of this case, the matter, therefore, should have been remitted back to the learned Magistrate for the
purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence had
been made out or not."

18. In the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari (supra), again the Supreme Court has observed that
acceptance of final report would not stand in the way of taking cognizance of protest/complaint
application. Paras 25 and 39 of the said case reads as under:

25. In Rakesh v. State of U.P. [Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2014) 13 SCC 133 : (2014) 5
SCC (Cri) 611] , on the basis of a first information report lodged by the police after investigation, a
final report came to be filed. The Magistrate accepted the final report. He, simultaneously, directed
that the case be proceeded with as a complaint case. Statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the
Code were recorded. The High Court turned down the plea of the accused to whom summons were
issued. It was the contention of the accused that having accepted a negative final report, the court
could not take action on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant. This Court refers
to the judgment in H.S. Bains [H.S. Bains v. State (UT of Chandigarh), (1980) 4 SCC 631 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 93] . The principles of law laid down in para 12 of Mahesh Chand [Mahesh Chand v. B.
Janardhan Reddy, (2003) 1 SCC 734 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 425] , which we have also referred to
earlier, came to be approved. The order of the High Court was approved.
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. In Mahesh Chand [Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy, (2003) 1 SCC 734 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 425] , no doubt the matter was commenced by a first information report and followed up
by the complainant in the court under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code. On the first information
report, after investigation, a final report was filed. The final report came to be accepted and it was
closed. This is despite the fact that there was the protest petition. A third complaint, as it were,
came to be filed by the complainant. This Court went on to hold that acceptance of the final report
would not stand in the way of taking cognizance on a protest/complaint petition."

19. In Samta Naidu (supra), the Supreme Court has declared the law that there is no
prohibition in filing or entertaining the second complaint even on the same facts provided the
earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed
without understanding the nature of the complaint. In Para 15, the Supreme Court held:

"15. Reliance was, however, placed by Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate,
on para 18 of the decision of this Court in Shivshankar Singh [Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2012) 1 SCC 130 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 513] . In that case, a protest petition was filed by the
complainant even before a final report was filed by the police. While the said protest petition was
pending consideration, the final report was filed, whereafter the second protest petition was filed.
Challenge raised by the accused that the second protest petition was not maintainable, was accepted
by the High Court [Anand Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2009 SCC OnLine Pat 857 : (2010) 1
PLJR 167] . In the light of these facts the matter came to be considered by this Court as under :
(Shivshankar Singh case [Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 SCC 130 : (2012) 1 SCC
(Cri) 513] , SCC pp. 133-34 & 136, paras 7 & 18-19)

"7. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
the High Court failed to appreciate that the so-called first protest petition having been filed prior to
the filing of the final report was not maintainable and just has to be ignored. The learned Magistrate
rightly did not proceed on the basis of the said protest petition and it remained merely a document
in the file. The second petition was the only protest petition which could be entertained as it had
been filed subsequent to the filing of the final report.

18. Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second
complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of
insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint
or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know
certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour.
However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been
disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit.

19. The protest petition can always be treated as a complaint and proceeded with in terms
of Chapter XV CrPC. Therefore, in case there is no bar to entertain a second complaint on the same
facts, in exceptional circumstances, the second protest petition can also similarly be entertained
only under exceptional circumstances. In case the first protest petition has been filed without
furnishing the full facts/particulars necessary to decide the case, and prior to its entertainment by
1 All. Neeleshramchandani & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1133
the court, a fresh protest petition is filed giving full details, we fail to understand as to why it
should not be maintainable."

20. It is relevant to be noted that in Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra), the
judgments of Mahesh Chand (supra) and Samta Naidu (supra) have been considered and
thereafter the Court has held that the second complaint is not maintainable. The important fact is
also to be flagged that the factual aspect of the present case is identical to the case of Subrata
Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury (supra). Therefore, this Court cannot take a different opinion
and the law declared by the Supreme Court in Subrata Choudhury @ Samtosh Chourdhury
(supra) is binding.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly,
the application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint No.188 of 2017, under
Sections 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. (Anil Singh vs. Vikas and others), pending in the court of
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh as well as impugned orders
dated 01.04.2021 and 10.1.2020, are quashed.

22. Before parting, one fact is also important to be noted that the revision preferred by
opposite party no.2 has been dismissed by the revisional court against acceptance of final report
vide order dated 1.8.2023. No one can be left remedy less. In case opposite party no.2 is aggrieved,
he may take recourse to law against the revisional order dated 1.8.2023.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 450 of 2025

Neeleshramchandani & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the FIR registered under Sections 351(2), 352, and 69 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of the DP Act,
deserved to be quashed?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 183 - Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 69, 351(2), 352 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections - 3, 4 - Writ
Petition - filed for quashing the impugned FIR - lodged under Sections 351(2), 352, 69 BNS and Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act - allegation of dowry demand and false promise of marriage - during
investigation Section 69 BNS is add - statements of informant recorded - petitioners argued relationship was
consensual, genuine, and marriage preparations were made, hence no deceit - respondents contended false