If the earlier disposal of the complaint had been 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.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices UU Lalit & Vineet Saran held that a second complaint on same facts as the first complaint shall not be maintainable.
The bench pointed out that if the core of both complaints was the same, the second complaint ought not to be maintained.
Supreme Court held:
While allowing the appeals and setting aside the decision of the high court, the Supreme Court held that a second complaint filed on same facts as the first one shall not be maintainable. Relying on Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, the Court pointed out that,
“There was no legal infirmity in the first complaint filed in the present matter. The complaint was filed more than a year after the sale of the vehicle which meant that the complainant had reasonable time at his disposal. The earlier complaint was dismissed after the Judicial Magistrate found that no prima facie case was made out; the earlier complaint was not disposed of on any technical ground; the material adverted to in the second complaint was only in the nature of supporting material; and the material relied upon in the second complaint was not such which could not have been procured earlier. Pertinently, the core allegations in both the complaints were identical.”
In light of this, the Court also directed that the amount deposited by the appellants be returned to them along with any interest accrued thereon.