Second FIR can be filed on same facts under certain circumstances

In OM PRAKASH SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS, the appellant purchased fully automatic Biochemistry Analyser of foreign make which was found to be defective. Thereafter as suggested by the local vendors of the the said company, the appellant purchased a more expensive type of the same machine of the same manufacturer through the same vendor. But when this machine also proved to be defective and the vendor did not show any concern, the appellant lodged an FIR against which charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna quashed the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter the appellant contacted the Italian manufacturer who directed them to a third party service provider who found several parts to be replaced by duplicates and also submitted a report on the same. The appellant again lodged an FIR against which charge sheet was again submitted before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences which was also quashed by the High Court.

The Supreme Court on appeal held that it was erroneous on part of the High Court to conceive that the present proceedings based on the subsequent complaint are liable to be quashed merely because the earlier criminal proceedings were quashed without considering the merits of the matter. The second FIR was filed based on new set of facts and new set of allegations and not based on old set of allegations as have been made in the earlier FIR. At that time, the appellant and his wife were not aware about replacement of the original parts with the duplicate ones. The Service report also was not in existence at that time. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan was justified in taking the cognizance, since prima facie case is found against respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Supreme Court in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthy v. the State of U.P. has observed that “the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit”. In the matter on hand, the complainant/appellant came to know certain facts relating to the replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first complaint, that too after getting a service report from “Key Pharma Limited, Delhi”, and, therefore, there is no bar for the appellant to lodge second complaint.