JUDGMENT 1. By this criminal miscellaneous petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 14.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District - Alwar as well as the order dated 17.04.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Distirct - Alwar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, initially, a complaint was filed, wherein, order was passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered FIR and, after investigation, negative Final Report (for short "FR") was given. After notice to the complainant, the FR was accepted vide order dated 21.11.2006. A second complaint was thereafter filed and cognizance was taken after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The order taking cognizance was challenged by maintaining a revision petition but it was dismissed ignoring the fact that second complaint was not maintainable after acceptance of FR. 3. My attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Hira Lal & ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors", reported as 2009(1) WLC (SC) Criminal 769 . Therein, the issue regarding maintainability of second complaint was decided. 4. It is submitted that if second complaint is entertained, virtually, it would be in violation of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and is not permissible. It is alternatively argued that even if second complaint is maintainable, it can be in the exceptional cases to be discussed in the second complaint. Thus, alternatively, and looking to the fact that in the present matter, exceptional circumstances do not exist to entertain second complaint, orders impugned herein may be set aside and, accordingly, criminal proceedings may be dropped against the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that second complaint is maintainable in certain circumstances. Referring to the facts of this case, it is urged that on the first complaint, an order was passed under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. The FIR was registered and the police submitted FR showing it to be a case of civil nature. The FR aforesaid was accepted by the Court for want of address and availability of accused thus acceptance of FR was not on merit and was on the ground not given by the police. It was not after hearing the complainant though served with the notice. The FR aforesaid was accepted by the Court for want of address and availability of accused thus acceptance of FR was not on merit and was on the ground not given by the police. It was not after hearing the complainant though served with the notice. Looking to the aforesaid, second complaint was maintainable as the issue was not threshold on the merit so as to deny second complaint. Looking to those exceptional circumstances, second complaint was rightly entertained followed by the order of cognizance. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that on first complaint, an order was passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered an FIR and conducted investigation. The FR was submitted showing it to be a case of civil nature. The Court below thereupon passed following order on 21.11.2006 for acceptance of FR : ifjoknh eaxy mi0 ughaA ckj ckj vkokt yxkbZ xbZA dksbZ mi0 ughaA uksfVl dh rkehy gks pqdh gSA FR dk voyksdu gqvkA FR vne irk eky eqyfteku esa is'k gqbZA FR Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA i=k0 Qsly 'kqekj dsl Mk;jh lEcfU/kr Fkkus dks vkxkeh irkth gsrq Hksth tkosA 8. The perusal of order quoted above shows that on receipt of FR, notice was given to the complainant. He remained absent but then acceptance of FR was for want of address and availability of accused, which is different than the reasons given in the FR. The complainant then maintained second complaint. Therein, after recording the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., cognizance has been taken. 9. The question now comes as to whether second complaint is maintainable and, if maintainable, then as to whether facts of this case allow second complaint? 10. First question as to whether second complaint is maintainable or not was answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Mahesh Chand v. B.Janardhan Reddy & Anr." reported in 2003 Crl. L.J. 866 . Therein, it was held that second complaint is not completely barred. In para No.19 of the said judgment, the issue has been discussed, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "19. Keeping in view the settled legal principles, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in holding that the second complaint was completely barred. Therein, it was held that second complaint is not completely barred. In para No.19 of the said judgment, the issue has been discussed, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "19. Keeping in view the settled legal principles, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in holding that the second complaint was completely barred. It is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. As held in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar's case (supra) second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further, second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter, therefore, should have been remitted back to the learned Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence had been made out or not." 11. Perusal of para quoted above reveals that second complaint is not totally barred as no statutory bar exists. The Court was, however, of the opinion that if the sufficient ground exists, second complaint can be entertained. Another judgment on the issue is in the case of " Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar", reported as AIR 1962 SC 876 , wherein, earlier judgment has been followed. 12. Same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of " Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana & anr" reported as (2009) 9 SCC 642 . 12. Same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of " Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana & anr" reported as (2009) 9 SCC 642 . Therein, it is held that second complaint can be maintained in exceptional circumstances like; where previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false or where new facts, which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in a previous proceedings, have been adduced. It was, however, held that recalling of the order would not be maintainable in view of section 362 CrPC. Paras 23 to 29 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference - "23. In the instant case, the question is narrowed down further as to whether such a second complaint would be maintainable when the earlier one had not been dismissed on merits, but for the failure of the complainant to put in process fees for effecting service. 24. The answer has been provided firstly in Pramatha Nath Talukdar's case, wherein this Court had held that even if a complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C, a second complaint would still lie under exceptional circumstances, indicated hereinbefore. The said view has been consistently upheld in subsequent decisions of this Court. Of course, the question of making a prayer for recalling the order of dismissal would not be maintainable before the learned Magistrate in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C, but such is not the case in these special leave petitions. 25. In the present cases, neither have the complaints been dismissed on merit nor have they been dismissed at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, only on being satisfied of a prima facie case, the learned Magistrate had issued process on the complaint. 26. 25. In the present cases, neither have the complaints been dismissed on merit nor have they been dismissed at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, only on being satisfied of a prima facie case, the learned Magistrate had issued process on the complaint. 26. The said situation is mainly covered by the decision of this Court in Jatinder Singh's case, wherein the decision in Pramatha Nath Talukdar's case was also taken into consideration and it was categorically observed that in the absence of any provision in the Code barring a second complaint being filed on the same allegation, there would be no bar to a second complaint being filed on the same facts if the first complaint did not result in the conviction or acquittal or even discharge of the accused, and if the dismissal was not on merit but on account of a default on the part of the complainant. 27. As far as the first complaint under Section 420/34 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the petitioner has not seriously questioned the order of the High Court rejecting the petitioner's prayer for quashing the same. The petitioner confined his case mainly to the complaint wherein the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and issued process under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite an earlier complaint on the same ground and on the same set of facts having been dismissed earlier for non-filing of process fees. 28. We are unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, since the law with regard to the filing of a second complaint is now crystallised. It is well settled that such a complaint is maintainable in different circumstances as enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar's case and Jatinder Singh. 29. We, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing both the Special Leave Petitions, since we are of the view that both the complaints are maintainable and the impugned judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed." 13. The judgment aforesaid indicates as to under what exceptional circumstances, second complaint can be maintained. 14. Same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of " Poonam Chand Jain & anr v. Fazru", reported as (2010) 2 SCC 631 . Therein, all the earlier judgments on the issue have been considered. The judgment aforesaid indicates as to under what exceptional circumstances, second complaint can be maintained. 14. Same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of " Poonam Chand Jain & anr v. Fazru", reported as (2010) 2 SCC 631 . Therein, all the earlier judgments on the issue have been considered. Paras 15 to 19 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference - "15. Almost similar questions came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Anr. v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar . The majority judgment in Pramatha Nath was delivered by Justice Kapur. His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. This Court explained the exceptional circumstances as: (a) where the previous order was passed on incomplete record, or (b) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint, or (c) the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, or (d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. 16. This Court in Pramatha Nath made it very clear that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again. In paragraph 50 of the judgment the majority judgment of this Court opined that fresh evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record. This Court very clearly held that it cannot be settled law which permits the complainant to place some evidence before the Magistrate which are in his possession and then if the complaint is dismissed adduce some more evidence. According to this Court such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the law. (para 50, page 899) 17. This question again came up for consideration before this Court in Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur . According to this Court such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the law. (para 50, page 899) 17. This question again came up for consideration before this Court in Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur . There also this Court by relying on the principle in Pramatha Nath held that there is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which debars complainant from filing a second complaint on the same allegation as in the first complaint. But this Court added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses a complaint on merits "exceptional circumstances". This Court held in para 12, if the dismissal of the first complaint is not on merit but the dismissal is for the default of the complainant then there is no bar in the filing a second complaint on the same facts. However if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merit the position will be different. 18. Saying so, the learned Judges in Ranjit Kaur held that the controversy has been settled by this Court in Pramatha Nath and quoted the observation of Justice Kapur in paragraph 48 of Pramatha Nath: (AIR p.899, para 48) "48. An order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g., where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interest of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into" 19. Again in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Anr ., a three Judge Bench of this Court considered this question in paragraph 19 at page 740 of the report. Again in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Anr ., a three Judge Bench of this Court considered this question in paragraph 19 at page 740 of the report. The learned Judges of this Court held that a second complaint is not completely barred nor is there any statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts in a case where a previous complaint was dismissed without assigning any reason. The Magistrate under Section 204 of the Code can take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In Mahesh Chand this Court relied on the ratio in Pramatha Nath and held if the first complaint had been dismissed the second complaint can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances and thereafter the exceptional circumstances pointed out in Pramatha Nath were reiterated. Therefore, this Court holds that the ratio in Pramatha Nath is still holding the field. The same principle has been reiterated once again by this Court in Hiralal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors . In paragraph 14 of the judgment this Court expressly quoted the ratio in Mahesh Chand discussed hereinabove." 15. In view of the above, it cannot be said that second complaint is barred or cannot be entertained. The first question is accordingly answered. The second complaint is maintainable in certain cases. 16. The question now comes as to whether second complaint can be entertained in all circumstances? 17. The answer exists in the judgment in the case of Mahesh Chand (supra) and other judgments referred to above. The second complaint can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. In view of above, while entertaining the second complaint, it would be necessary to see as to whether case is falling in the category as specified by the Hon'ble Apex Court for entertaining second complaint. One of the exceptions is that for acceptance of FR, the complainant was not called and heard. It may be even in the cases where acceptance of FR in previous complaint is without assigning any reason etc. In the background aforesaid, it is necessary for the Court to look into as to whether reasons exist for entertaining second complaint and if it is sufficiently shown then only second complaint can be entertained and not otherwise. 18. It may be even in the cases where acceptance of FR in previous complaint is without assigning any reason etc. In the background aforesaid, it is necessary for the Court to look into as to whether reasons exist for entertaining second complaint and if it is sufficiently shown then only second complaint can be entertained and not otherwise. 18. If the case in hand is looked into, on first complaint, an order was passed under section 156(3) CrPC and, after investigation, the police gave FR showing it to be a case of civil nature. The perusal of the order accepting the FR shows it to be for want of address and availability of accused. In the background aforesaid, the acceptance of FR was not after considering the facts of this case or allegation made therein though it was after service of notice to the complainant, who remained absent in the proceedings. 19. The fact, however, remains that acceptance of FR is for the reasons different than given by the police. 20. The aforesaid is clinching issue for consideration because second complaint was maintained and after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, cognizance has been taken. Looking to the peculiar and exceptional facts of this case as mentioned above, the second complaint in the present matter was maintainable. The order for taking cognizance was passed after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC thus needs no interference. 21. A reference of judgment of this Court in the case of " Shahjad Ali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr." reported in 2009 (4) RLW 3185 (Raj.) has been given. Therein I find that on the first complaint, the trial Court had taken cognizance, however, the order was quashed by the Revisional Court. The complainant therein did not challenge the order passed by the Revisional Court thus it attained finality. The second complaint filed after two years on the same facts was not held to be maintainable in view of facts mentioned above. If the reasons are looked into, it becomes clear that after cognizance pursuant to first complaint, the Revisional Court set aside the order for the reasons assigned. Once, the Higher Court passed the order and it has attained finality, contrary to it, second complaint was not maintainable on the same facts and after lapse of two years. If the reasons are looked into, it becomes clear that after cognizance pursuant to first complaint, the Revisional Court set aside the order for the reasons assigned. Once, the Higher Court passed the order and it has attained finality, contrary to it, second complaint was not maintainable on the same facts and after lapse of two years. The order of the Court below was set aside for the reasons aforesaid. The facts of this case are altogether different than discussed by the Court. 22. In the light of the discussion made above, the criminal miscellaneous petition challenging two orders are found to be devoid of merit, hence, it is dismissed so as the stay application.Petition Dismissed. *******