Second Complaint on Same Facts Not Maintainable Without Exceptional Circumstances - Allahabad High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

Filing Repetitive Criminal Cases to Harass Opponent is an Abuse of Process - In a decisive judgment Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by Smt. Shailja Nagar against Yogeshwar Raj Nagar and another, ruling that a second complaint on the same facts, without new evidence or exceptional circumstances, is not maintainable. The Court held that "once an FIR has been investigated, a final report submitted, and a protest petition dismissed, the complainant cannot keep filing successive complaints merely to harass the accused."

The dispute arose over the management of ‘Rajbala Spring Dale Academy’, a school established by the father of the petitioner and the complainant’s late husband. The complainant lodged an FIR in 2005, alleging criminal breach of trust and forgery in the school’s affairs. After a police investigation, a final report was submitted in 2012, which was accepted by the Magistrate. However, in 2017, the complainant filed a fresh complaint on the same facts, leading to the issuance of summons under Section 406 IPC.

The High Court ruled that "criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle civil disputes. The complainant, having already exhausted legal remedies in the first case, cannot reopen proceedings without exceptional circumstances."

"Once a Final Report is Accepted, Fresh Complaint on the Same Facts is Not Permissible Without New Evidence"
The complainant had initially filed Case Crime No. 33 of 2005 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 506 IPC, alleging that the petitioners had wrongfully taken over the management of the school. The police submitted a final report in 2012, which was accepted by the Magistrate after rejecting the complainant’s protest petition.

Despite this, the complainant filed a new complaint in 2017 based on the same allegations, leading to the issuance of summons under Section 406 IPC. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the fresh complaint was an abuse of process, filed only to harass them after failing in previous legal battles.

The High Court ruled that "when a final report is accepted and the protest petition is dismissed, a fresh complaint on the same facts can only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as discovery of new evidence or a manifest miscarriage of justice. The complainant failed to show any such circumstances, making the second complaint legally unsustainable."

"A Criminal Case Cannot Be Used to Give a Criminal Color to a Civil Dispute"
The petitioners argued that the entire dispute revolved around succession and management rights over the school, which was purely civil in nature. The complainant was using criminal law as a pressure tactic to gain control over the institution.

Agreeing with this contention, the High Court ruled that "civil disputes over property or management rights cannot be converted into criminal cases merely to exert pressure on the opposing party. Criminal law is meant to punish genuine offenses, not to be misused as a tool of harassment."

The Court noted that the parties had engaged in multiple litigations over school management, including proceedings up to the Supreme Court. Despite this, the complainant attempted to criminalize the matter, which was an abuse of process."

"Summoning Order Cannot Be Passed Mechanically Without Applying Judicial Mind"
The High Court also quashed the order dated October 6, 2017, summoning the petitioners under Section 406 IPC, ruling that it was a cryptic order lacking any application of mind.

Citing Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609, the Court reiterated that "summoning an accused is a serious matter affecting their dignity and reputation. It cannot be done mechanically or as a matter of routine. The Magistrate must apply his mind and provide reasons to justify why a prima facie case exists."

The High Court ruled that "the summoning order in this case merely stated that the statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, without explaining why the offense of criminal breach of trust was made out. Such an order is legally unsustainable and must be set aside."

Final Judgment: Second Complaint Quashed, Criminal Proceedings Terminated
Allowing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court ruled: "The second complaint filed in 2017, after the acceptance of the final report in 2012, is not maintainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances. It is an abuse of legal process aimed at harassing the petitioners. The complaint, summoning order dated October 6, 2017, and all consequential proceedings are quashed."

Further, dismissing the complainant’s application under Section 482 CrPC, the Court ruled: "The complainant waited over six years before challenging the final report. Such an unexplained delay, coupled with repeated attempts to reopen the same allegations, demonstrates mala fide intent. The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed."

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling reaffirms that "criminal law must not be misused to settle civil disputes or harass opponents through repeated litigation. Once a final report is accepted, a fresh complaint on the same facts is not permissible unless new evidence or exceptional circumstances emerge."

By quashing the frivolous criminal proceedings, the judgment ensures that "litigants cannot endlessly reopen settled matters, and legal remedies must be exercised in good faith, not as a tool for vendetta."

Date of Decision: 06 March 2025