PINKI DHAWAN Vs. SATISH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on November 20, 1993 under Sections 448/427/34/504/506, Indian Penal Code. On February 7, 1994, while it was listed for preliminary evidence, it appears that the respondent (complainant) did not appear and, therefore, the same was dismissed for his non-appearance. The respondent thereafter filed another complaint on the very next date, i.e. on February 8, 1994, against the petitioner on identical allegations, alleging committal of offences by the petitioner punishable under the same provisions of the penal law. It is asserted by the petitioner that the evidence in this complaint was recorded on January 28, 1995. However, the aforementioned second complaint too was dismissed due to non-appearance of the complainant on November 11, 1995. The dismissal of the two complaints, however, did not deter the respondent from harassing the petitioner. He came out with yet another complaint on 16.11.1995 (Annexure P-1), which too was based upon the same facts and alleging the committal of offences by the petitioner under the same provisions of the penal law. In the third complaint, the respondent also moved an application for the transfer of the evidence which he had led in the second complaint. His request was accepted by the learned Magistrate and consequently the evidence which the complainant had produced in the second complaint was taken on record as if the same had been produced in the third complaint. Relying upon that evidence, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 13.12.1995. Aggrieved at the summoning order, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court at Gurgaon, by filing a Criminal Revision Petition, which was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide his judgment and order dated August 22, 1998. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the evidence led by the respondent in the second complaint could not have been borrowed and taken on record as if it was produced in the third complaint. The matter was, however, sent back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct further enquiry into the complaint and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner having remained dissatisfied with the part-acceptance of her revision petition, has approached this Court.

(2.) I have heard Sh. R.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sh. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the issue as to whether after dismissal of the previous complaint, be that may due to non- appearance and/or non-prosecution, the subsequent complaint on the same allegations is maintainable or not, is no longer res integra and has been answered by this Court on more than one occasion in favour of the accused like the petitioner in the instant case, after holding that with the dismissal of the earlier complaint, the subsequent complaint on the same allegations would amount to abuse of process of Court, and as such the subsequent complaint is not maintainable.