Abuse of Process through Second Complaint

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Ranimol & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr. (2025) held that the process of law had been grossly abused and misused by the private respondent who filed a complaint after a closure report had already been submitted. 

What was the Background of Ranimol & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The second respondent filed a First Information Report against the appellants and other accused persons for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The charge sheet was filed in 2015, but appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were not included in the report (a negative report was filed against them). 
• The Trial Court took cognizance of the negative report regarding the appellants, and the trial commenced in CC No. 295/2016 against the remaining accused persons. 
• The allegations were that the appellants, along with their husbands, confronted the complainant/respondent No. 2 in the southern courtyard of his shop and attacked him. 
• Despite the negative report filed against the appellants, respondent No. 2 did not file a protest petition challenging the closure report. 
• After a lapse of two and a half years, respondent No. 2 chose to file a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The appellants challenged the committal proceedings initiated by the Magistrate by approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. 
• The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that a new offence (Section 308 IPC) had been added, and therefore there was no need to interfere.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court noted this was "nothing but an abuse of the process of law" where a detailed investigation had been conducted and a negative report filed, which respondent No. 2 had not challenged. 
• Merely adding an offence for the same occurrence, by the same informant, a second complaint through invocation of Section 200 CrPC is not maintainable. 
• The respondent relied on Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2013), but the Court held that the ratio was actually in favour of the appellants. 
• The Court emphasized the principle from Surender Kaushik: "What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case", as it would amount to improvement of facts. 
• The prohibition does not cover rival versions or counter complaints by different persons making distinct allegations, which was not the case here. 
• The Court noted it was dealing with the liberty of a person, and therefore the question of double jeopardy would arise. 
• The High Court ought to have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by quashing the vexatious proceedings.

Court's Directions: 

• The impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside. 
• The proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate against the appellants were quashed. 
• The Court clarified that this order would not have any bearing on the pending trial pertaining to the earlier First Information Report (against the other accused persons). 
• The appeal was allowed.

What is  Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) received Presidential assent on December 25, 2023 and came into force on July 1, 2024, repealing the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• Section 223 of BNSS corresponds to Section 200 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• The introduction of a proviso to Section 223(1) has completely changed the manner in which Magistrates deal with private complaints. 

Text of Section 223 BNSS: 

Section 223(1): 

• A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant, witnesses, and the Magistrate. 

First Proviso (Key Change): 

• No cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. 

Section 223(2): 

• For complaints against public servants, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance unless the public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions about the incident and a report from the superior officer is received.

Legislative Intent and Objectives: 

The legislature, following the principle of "audi alteram partem," introduced this statutory safeguard with two objectives: 

1. To provide the proposed accused in a private complaint an opportunity of being heard before cognizance and summoning. 
2. To discourage filing of private criminal complaints laden with subterfuges, concealments and misrepresentation of facts.