H TANEJA ALIAS HARIS TANEJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained by the Petitioners who are accused and are being prosecuted in respect of an offence before a Metropolitan Magistrate and the instant Rule has been obtained against the order of Shri K.J. Majumdar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Fifth Court, Calcutta, holding that the instant complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 which was a second complaint to the Magistrate was maintainable. On behalf of the Petitioners objection was taken to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that this is a second complaint on identical facts by the opposite party No. 1 and as such, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass orders thereon.

(2.) The relevant facts are opposite party No. 1 previously filed a complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate which was registered as complaint case No. C. 76 of 1975. The Magistrate issued summons on the accused persons, namely, the present Petitioners in this Rule. The learned Magistrate observed that the cognizance taken in that case was bad in law in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Brahmananda Goel v. N.C. Chakraborty, 1974 CrLJ 1069. Under the aforesaid circumstances the complainant filed a petition to the Magistrate to withdraw the petition of complaint with liberty to institute fresh complaint on the same ground. The Metropolitan Magistrate on April 8, 1975, passed the following order:

(3.) The only point which arises for decision in this Rule is whether a second complaint in the circumstances of the case can be maintained lawfully.