Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. vs The State of Assam & Anr. 2024

The Apex Court implores the ideas around the second complaint, containing allegations identical to the first, was maintainable or not. the facts of the case are as follows: 

• A complaint was filed on 11.11.2010 and an FIR was registered. After investigation, a final report was submitted, and the complainant filed a protest petition (narazi petition) challenging the report. 
• After the magistrate dismissed the protest petition, the complainant filed a second complaint 20.07.2011 reproducing the same allegations as in the first complaint. 
• The magistrate dismissed the second complaint, citing that the allegations were identical to the first complaint and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting its maintenance. 
• Both courts interfered with the magistrate's decision and allowed the second complaint to proceed. 
• The accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

• Whether the second complaint, containing allegations identical to the first, was maintainable. 
• Whether the magistrate was justified in dismissing the second complaint. 

• The second complaint was a reproduction of the first complaint and did not raise exceptional circumstances warranting interference. 
• The complainant's claims were already considered during the investigation and the protest petition. 
• The magistrate's dismissal of the second complaint was justified. 
• The Sessions Court and High Court's interference was unwarranted. 
• Appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was set aside. 

• The Court reiterated principles from previous rulings, emphasizing that a second complaint is maintainable only in rare and exceptional circumstances. 
• The second complaint was merely a reiteration of the first and did not bring any new facts or grounds. 
• Allowing such complaints would lead to abuse of process and undermine judicial efficiency. 
• The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial processes cannot be used for repetitive litigation. 
• It upholds the magistrate’s discretion in assessing complaints for maintainability.