A files a complaint petition against B for voluntarily causing hurt to him. The concerned Magistrate dismisses the complaint petition of A. After some days, A again files the complaint petition against B… The accused challenges the cognizance under Section 482… Is his argument sustainable in law?

Question: A files a complaint petition against B for voluntarily causing hurt to him. The concerned Magistrate dismisses the complaint petition of A. After some days, A again files the complaint petition against B for the same offence on the same facts. This time Magistrate takes the cognizance of the case. The accused challenges the cognizance under Section 482 of CrPC in the High Court on the ground that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 300 of CrPC and now he cannot be tried. Is his argument sustainable in law?

Find the answer only on Legal Bites. [A files a complaint petition against B for voluntarily causing hurt to him. The concerned Magistrate dismisses the complaint petition of A. After some days, A again files the complaint petition against B… The accused challenges the cognizance under Section 482… Is his argument sustainable in law?]

Answer

Section 300 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down provisions regarding persons once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence. The explanation appended to the section reads as:

“The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.”

The first conviction or acquittal is a bar to a second trial if the offence is the same. The cases referred to in the Explanation are all cases where there was no trial determining the matter. None of the orders here specified can be regarded as constituting an acquittal in a trial.

It was held in the case of Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, (2015) 8 SCC 286 that the explanation to section 300 clearly mandates that the dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of an accused, would not be construed as an acquittal. The Respondent had been discharged in furtherance of the previous complaint made by the appellant in respect of the offence under section 376 of IPC, without any trial having been conducted against him. Hence, the proceedings in the second complaint were not barred.

Thus, applying the aforesaid provision to the present case at hand, where A files a complaint petition against B for voluntarily causing hurt to him and the concerned Magistrate dismisses the complaint petition of A, it would not be construed as an acquittal. There was no trial conducted against B for the offence done. Hence the benefit of section 300 will not be available to the accused in the subsequent trial.

---

Important Mains/Long Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
11. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part XI: Important Questions