Can an Informant File a Second Complaint After Police Drop Accused? Supreme Court Says No

The Supreme Court recently said that when the police have already completed a detailed investigation and filed a negative report, and the informant has not challenged that report, the same person cannot file a second complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC just by adding another offence based on the same incident.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma relied on Surender Kaushik & Ors vs State of U P & Ors (2013), which held that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. 

"The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint,'' the bench quoted the judgment.

Court further noted that this prohibition does not extend to allegations made by the accused in the first FIR, who may present a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions regarding the same occurrence may take different forms, and in such cases, the filing of two FIRs is permissible.

Dealing with an appeal filed by one Ranimol and others, the bench observed, “This is a case in which the process of law has been grossly abused and misused by the private respondent".

In this matter, a private complaint was filed against the appellants and other accused, even though a closure report had already been submitted in their favour. Because of this, only the remaining accused were put on trial, even though both sets of proceedings arose from the same incident and the same facts.

The FIR in the case was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447 of the IPC, and a charge sheet was filed in 2015. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were not included in the final report. The trial court accepted the negative report against them and proceeded only against the remaining accused.

Despite not challenging the negative report by filing a protest petition, respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC after two-and-a-half years.

The appellants challenged the Magistrate’s committal order before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court rejected their plea, saying that the addition of a new offence under Section 308 of the IPC made the second complaint maintainable.

The appellants’ counsel argued that this clearly amounted to misuse of the legal process. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 relied on Surender Kaushik to argue that a second complaint could be allowed in exceptional cases, especially since a new offence and new accused had been added, and the police had allegedly failed to investigate properly.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the case was nothing but abuse of process. It noted that the police had already carried out a full investigation and filed a negative report, which respondent No. 2 never challenged. The incident was the same, and although the appellants were named in the FIR, they were later dropped from the investigation.

The bench said that the same informant cannot file a second complaint for the same incident simply by adding another offence. It also observed that, contrary to the respondent’s argument, the judgment in Surender Kaushik actually supported the appellants’ case. Court stressed that this was not a situation involving new allegations by a third party or a different version of events. Since the accused in the FIR were the same as those in the second complaint, the bar against double jeopardy was relevant.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have used its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash such vexatious proceedings. It set aside the Kerala High Court’s order and clarified that its judgment would not affect the ongoing trial arising from the original FIR.

Case Title: Ranimol & Ors Vs The State of Kerala & Ors

Judgment Date: November 18, 2025

Bench: Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma