(1.) A second complaint by the defacto complainant referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation without noticing the earlier complaint on the same set of facts and transaction and the cognizance taken thereof for the offence under Section 415, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC is under challenge on the ground of suppression of earlier complaint. It is submitted that it really amounts to abuse of process of the court and cannot be sustained and took support from the legal position laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P, (2015) 2 KerLT 451 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court observed that the practice of filing complaints in a routine manner without taking responsibility and reference of the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be avoided and the Magistrate can in proper cases insist the complainant to file an affidavit in support of the allegations along with the complaint. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:
(2.) The legal position so settled was followed by this Court in Prasanth v. C.V.Kuriakose and Another,2020 4 KHC 795 and Kakkanattu Balagopalan Nair Deepu @ Deepu K.B. v. State of Kerala and Another,2017 1 KHC 862.
(3.) Apart from the requirement of filing an affidavit in support of the complaint, provisions are made under Section 210 Cr.P.C. to meet a situation wherein two parallel proceedings are initiated, i.e. a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as complaint case) and an investigation by the police, which is in progress in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of the complaint case. When it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate before whom the complaint case is pending, he shall stay its proceedings of enquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. Section 210 Cr.P.C. is extracted below for reference: Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.-