Facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by a second son against his mother and his brother, that accused persons had unilaterally sold a car belonging to the deceased (father of the complainant) and which, after his death, had become joint family property. He then filed a fresh complaint on same allegations but relying on additional material.
The question involved was whether the second complaint was maintainable or not, the High Court observed:
“However, in the context of the instant case, when we compare the two complaints, it is obvious that at the time of filing the first complaint, the complainant seems to be aware only of the fact that accused persons had unilaterally sold a car belonging to the deceased and which, after his death, had become joint family property. The complainant seems to have acquired the knowledge of details of the transaction later. Therefore, subsequent complaint provides the particulars of the transaction in far greater details.”
The High Court, thus, found no infirmity warranting interference and dismissed both the Revision Petitions.
Appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice U.U Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran, concluded as follows:
"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 material adverted in the second complaint was only in the nature of supporting material. The core allegations in both the complaints were identical. The High Court was thus not justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable."
Read the Judgement:
Picture Source :
