B.R.K. Aathithan filed two identical complaints. The Supreme Court said the second was abuse.

One Defamation Complaint Wasn't Enough. The Supreme Court Said That's the Problem.

B.R.K. Aathithan was arrested in 2013. The Tirucher Taluk Police in Tutukodi District registered FIR No. 345/2013 under Section 468 IPC, alleging he had taken large sums of money by promising admission to law colleges. TV channels and newspapers owned by the Sun Group reported his arrest and the FIR. Aathithan felt the coverage defamed him. So he filed a criminal defamation complaint. That complaint was dismissed. He filed a second, virtually identical complaint before a different Magistrate. That one got the Sun Group summoned. The High Court quashed it. The Supreme Court of India, in B.R.K. Aathithan v. Sun Group & Anr., dismissed Aathithan's appeal. The stakes were simple: could a litigant get a second bite at the defamation apple by simply walking to a different court? The answer, the Bench held, is no—unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

The First Complaint: Dismissed Under Section 203 CrPC

On 28 April 2015, Aathithan approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate with a complaint under Sections 499/500 IPC. He argued that the Sun Group's reportage of his arrest was defamatory. The Magistrate examined the complaint and the material on record. The order was crisp: the content fell within the Fourth Exception to Section 499 IPC—public conduct of a public servant reported in good faith. No prima facie case was made out. The complaint was dismissed under Section 203 CrPC.

Aathithan wasn't done. He filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench. On 10 June 2015, he withdrew the revision petition. The High Court granted him liberty "to work out his remedy in the manner known to law." That phrase—"liberty to work out his remedy"—would become the pivot of the entire dispute.

The Second Complaint: A Replica That Worked—Briefly

Armed with that liberty, Aathithan filed a second complaint. This time, he went to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur. The complaint was a replica of the first. Identical averments. Identical allegations. No new facts. No new material. The Magistrate at Tiruchendur, however, took a different view. On 30 August 2019, he issued summons to the Sun Group under Section 204 CrPC.

The Sun Group moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court quashed the second complaint. Its reasoning was straightforward: the first dismissal was after due application of judicial mind. A second complaint on identical facts was not maintainable. The High Court also noted that the Magistrate who issued summons had not even referred to the earlier dismissal order.

The Supreme Court: One Question, One Answer

Before the Supreme Court of India, the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari had a single question to answer: was the second complaint maintainable?

The appellant argued that the first Magistrate's order was erroneous. The Fourth Exception to Section 499 IPC, he said, places the onus on the accused to prove that the reportage falls within the exception. The first Magistrate, he contended, had wrongly shifted that onus. The second complaint, therefore, was a legitimate attempt to correct that error. He relied on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, where the Supreme Court had held that the onus to establish the Fourth Exception lies on the accused.

The respondents countered that the first dismissal was a reasoned order. The Magistrate had applied his mind. The second complaint was a clear abuse of process. They cited Pramantha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876 and Shivshankar Singh v. State of Bihar and Another (2012) 1 SCC 130 to argue that a second complaint is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances—none of which existed here.

The Doctrine That Mattered: Exceptional Circumstances Only

The Supreme Court agreed with the respondents. It laid down the law in three crisp propositions.

First, a second complaint is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances. These include: where the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits, or on technical grounds, or by reasoning that is perverse or absurd in law, or where the second complaint is based on facts that did not exist or were not accessible when the first complaint was filed. None of these applied to Aathithan's case.

Second, the Court drew a critical distinction between "application of judicial mind" and "erroneous conclusion." A court may apply its mind fully and still reach an erroneous conclusion. That error is justiciable before a superior court. But it does not mean the trial court failed to apply its mind. The first Magistrate had examined the complaint, applied the Fourth Exception, and dismissed it. That was an application of mind—even if the appellant believed it was wrong.

Third, the withdrawal of the criminal revision with liberty to "work out his remedy" did not permit Aathithan to file a second complaint on identical facts. The liberty, the Court held, could not be stretched to allow a fresh complaint that was a carbon copy of the first. If the appellant believed the first order was erroneous, he should have pursued the revision or challenged it in a higher forum—not filed a second complaint before a different Magistrate.

THE PLAY: If your first complaint is dismissed after a reasoned order, do not file a second complaint on identical facts before a different court. Challenge the first order through revision or appeal. A second complaint is only maintainable in exceptional circumstances—new facts, no application of mind, or perverse reasoning.

Why the Subramanian Swamy Argument Failed

The appellant's strongest card was Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the onus to establish the Fourth Exception to Section 499 IPC lies on the accused. The appellant argued that the first Magistrate had wrongly placed the onus on him. Therefore, the first order was perverse, and the second complaint should be allowed.

The Supreme Court distinguished Subramanian Swamy. It noted that the appellant had the opportunity to raise this very argument in the criminal revision before the High Court. He chose to withdraw the revision instead. He could not now use that argument to justify a second complaint. The Court observed that the contention regarding onus was "available to the appellant before the High Court in the Criminal Revision itself and ought to have been pursued there rather than in a second complaint."

This is a crucial signal for litigants: you must exhaust all arguments in the appellate or revisional challenge to the first complaint. You cannot reserve arguments for a second complaint. The remedy for an erroneous order is appeal or revision, not a fresh complaint.

What This Means in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a procedural roadmap. If your client's complaint is dismissed under Section 203 CrPC, your options are limited. You can challenge the order in revision or appeal. You can file a second complaint only if you have new facts that were not available earlier, or if the first dismissal was without application of mind—for example, a one-line order that does not discuss the merits.

For CFOs and founders, the takeaway is simpler. If you are accused of defamation, and the complainant's first complaint is dismissed after a reasoned order, you have strong grounds to resist a second complaint. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a second complaint on identical facts is an abuse of process. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are available to quash such complaints.

The judgment also reinforces a basic principle of criminal procedure: a litigant cannot forum-shop by filing the same complaint before different Magistrates. The first dismissal, if it involves application of judicial mind, is final on the merits—unless exceptional circumstances exist.

The Bottom Line

If your first defamation complaint is dismissed after a reasoned order, do not file a second complaint on identical facts. Challenge the first order through revision or appeal. A second complaint is only maintainable in exceptional circumstances—and the Supreme Court has drawn a very narrow circle around what counts as exceptional.