JAMSHED Vs. SULTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter here concerns a second complaint under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code with the point in issue being - whether in the circumstances, entertaining this complaint was indeed warranted.

(2.) A reference to the record shows that in the first instance, respondent Sultan filed a complaint against the petitioner Jamshed under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he had married his wife Noor Jahan on July 25, 1979. The complainant had alleged in this complaint that Noor Jahan was his legally wedded wife whom he had married in May 1968. The trial Magistrate, by his order of February, 24, 1983, dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant Sultan had failed to prove the second marriage of his wife Noor Jahan with the petitioner Jamshed. The revision petition filed against this order was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge Sonepat by his order of December 14, 1983. It was after over a year of the dismissal of this revision petition that the complainant Sultan, filed the present complaint on February 22, 1985. In the first instance, the trial Magistrate, by his order of July 15, 1985, dismissed the complaint holding that there was no evidence regarding the second marriage of Noor Jahan with Jamshed and there were thus no sufficient grounds of proceeding against the petitioner. This order was, however, upset in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, by his order of October 5, 1985 whereby he sent the case back to the trial Magistrate for fresh appraisal of the preliminary evidence and the disposal of the complaint in accordance with law. It was, thereafter, that the impugned order came to be passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat on November 19, 1985, summoning the petitioner Jamshed and Noor Jahan under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IT is no doubt well -settled that an order dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts, but as observed by the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 876, a second complaint on the same facts will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced." It was further observed, "it cannot be said to be in the interests of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into." It is pertinent to note that in the present complaint, the date of the alleged marriage of Noor Jahan with Jamshed is not even suggested to be other than that as given in the first complaint, where, as mentioned earlier, it had been said that the marriage between them had been performed on July 25, 1979.