Once Final Report Is Accepted After Considering Protest Petition, Second Complaint On Same Facts Is Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

“Complaint filed after protest petition and revision were dismissed is nothing but abuse of process”, In a significant pronouncement on judicial discipline and finality of criminal proceedings, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has ruled that a second criminal complaint on the same set of facts is not maintainable once a final report is accepted by the Magistrate after due consideration of a protest petition and subsequent revision is dismissed. The Court held that such re-litigation amounts to a clear abuse of process of law.

Justice Brij Raj Singh quashed the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 188 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, including the summoning order dated 10.01.2020 and the bailable warrant dated 01.04.2021.

"The order accepting Final Report after hearing protest petition attains finality and bars re-agitation": High Court applies Subrata Choudhury precedent

The Court emphasized that judicial orders accepting final reports after full consideration of protest petitions acquire finality, and the complainant cannot reopen the same dispute through a subsequent private complaint under Section 200 CrPC.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury v. State of Assam (2024 INSC 834), the Court observed:

“The second complaint was filed after the dismissal of the protest petition and the consequential acceptance of the Final Report in the first complaint. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the rejection of the protest petition and acceptance of the Final Report... the matter was not taken forward further by the complainant. The second complaint, therefore, is clearly barred.”

Complaint filed after three layers of judicial review failed

The factual background presents a clear case of retaliatory litigation. The applicant's father and brothers were murdered, and he lodged an FIR against the opposite party’s relatives. In response, the opposite party (complainant in the criminal complaint) moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of FIR No. 344 of 2015.

After investigation, police submitted a Final Report, which was challenged through a protest petition. The Magistrate, after considering the protest and hearing the complainant, accepted the Final Report on 08.04.2017. A criminal revision against this order was also dismissed on 01.08.2023.

Despite this, the opposite party filed a private complaint on 17.11.2017, leading to the summoning of the applicant. It is this complaint and the subsequent proceedings which were now quashed by the High Court.

Court rejects argument of “different forum” under Section 200 CrPC

The opposite party had argued that proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC and a complaint under Section 200 CrPC were distinct remedies, and the latter could not be barred merely because of acceptance of a police final report.

The Court firmly rejected this line of reasoning, clarifying:

“When the Magistrate has exercised his judicial discretion to accept a Final Report after considering the protest petition, and the complainant has failed even before the Revisional Court, a second complaint on the same facts cannot be treated as a fresh cause of action.”

The Court also noted that exceptional circumstances, such as new facts, manifest miscarriage of justice, or incomplete record, which may justify a second complaint under the principles laid down in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy (2003) 1 SCC 734, were absent in the present case.

"No one can be allowed to litigate endlessly; process of law cannot be weaponized for vengeance"

The Court observed that allowing such complaints would effectively mean re-opening criminal proceedings ad infinitum merely by changing the procedural route. Justice Brij Raj Singh observed:

“The second complaint is based on the same set of allegations that were already considered and rejected on merits. The continuation of such proceedings would clearly amount to abuse of the process of law.”

The Court also noted that the complainant suppressed material facts in the second complaint and approached the Court with unclean hands, further disentitling him from equitable relief.

Distinction Between Protest Petition and Complaint Does Not Survive Once Magistrate Applies Judicial Mind

Addressing the complainant's contention that a protest petition lacks the character of a complaint, the Court held:

“The Magistrate’s acceptance of the Final Report after hearing the protest petition and giving a reasoned order reflects judicial application of mind. Once this process is complete, the bar of maintainability applies if the second complaint is a mere replica of the earlier protest.”

The Court also pointed out that even in Mahesh Chand and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari, relied upon by the complainant, the Supreme Court permitted second complaints only in extraordinary cases, where the first complaint was dismissed without full application of mind or on a procedural misunderstanding—which was not the case here.

Complaint quashed with liberty to challenge revisional order if advised

Allowing the application under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed the entire proceedings and all consequential orders.

However, Justice Brij Raj Singh clarified that the opposite party is not remediless, observing:

“If the opposite party is aggrieved by the revisional order dated 01.08.2023, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. But permitting a second complaint on identical facts would be contrary to the rule of law.”

Date of Decision: 28 January 2026