'The complainant/appellant came to know certain facts relating to the replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first complaint, that too after getting a service report from Key Pharma Limited, Delhi, and, therefore, there is no bar for the appellant to lodge second complaint.’

The bench observed that it is an error to conceive that the proceedings based on the subsequent complaint were liable to be quashed merely because the earlier criminal proceedings were quashed. It also observed that the FIR is thrust upon discovery of a new fact of replacing the original parts with the duplicate ones.

“Thus, it is clear that the subsequent complaint dated 05.08.2012 is based on new set of facts and a new set of allegations and not based on old set of allegations as have been made in the FIR dated 24.03.2008. It is needless to repeat that the FIR dated 24.03.2008 was based on the allegations of non-functioning of the machine in addition to delay and carelessness of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in getting the machine repaired. At that time, the appellant and his wife were not aware about replacement of the original parts with the duplicate ones. The Service report of “Key Pharma Limited” was not in existence at that time,” the bench observed holding that the CJM was justified in taking cognizance.

The bench also quoted from Udai Shankar Awasthy v. the State of UP, wherein it was held that “the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit”.

Setting aside the high court order, the bench said the complainant came to know certain facts relating to the replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first complaint, that too after getting a service report, and therefore there is no bar for the appellant to lodge second complaint.