SAMTA NAIDU & Anr. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & Anr.

#3. As against the facts in Shivshankar, the present case stands on a different footing. There was no legal infirmity in the first complaint filed in the present matter. The complaint was filed more than a year after the sale of the vehicle which meant the complainant had reasonable time at his disposal. The earlier complaint was dismissed after the Judicial Magistrate found that no prima facie case was made out; the earlier complaint was not disposed of on any technical ground; the material adverted to in the second complaint was only in the nature of supporting material; and the material relied upon in the second complaint was not such which could not have been procured earlier. Pertinently, the core allegations in both the complaints were identical. In the circumstances, the instant matter is completely covered by the decision of this Court in Taluqdar as explained in Jatinder Singh and Poonam Chand Jain. The High Court was thus not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable. [Para 17][1146 F-H; 1147 A-B] Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar [1962] Suppl. SCR 297; Jatinder Singh & Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur (2001) 2 SCC 570 : [2001] 1 SCR 707; Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. v. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631 : [2010] 2 SCR 109; Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 435 : [2013] 3 SCR 935; A B C D E F G H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R.