Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Second Complaint – Maintainability of – The first complaint contained the basic allegations that a vehicle belonging to the father of the parties, was sold after the death of their father with forged signature – It was alleged that by the complainant that his brother and his brother’s wife had forged the signatures of the father on Form 29 and 30 and that on the basis of such forged documents the benefit of “sale consideration of the vehicle” was derived by them – The Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence and documents produced held that no prima facie case was found and the complaint was rejected – After filing the revision, the complainant sought to withdraw the revision with further liberty to file the fresh complaint – Thereafter, another complaint was filed on same allegations but with additional material in support of the basic allegation – The High court held the second complaint maintainable – On appeal, held: 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 covered by the decision of the Supreme 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 – The decision of the High Court set aside and the second complaint is dismissed as not being maintainable.