DATE OF JUDGMENT: 8th March, 2021.
JUDGES: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran.
PARTIES: Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. (Appellant)
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (Respondent)
SUMMARY: The instant case deals with the issue of whether or not multiple complaints can be filed by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident.
OVERVIEW
1. The appellants and the respondent in the case are neighbours. A physical altercation took place between the appellant, the respondent and his wife. While the occurrence of such an altercation is an admitted fact between the parties, the details hereof form the crux of the prolonged litigation.
2. The respondent filed a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) against the appellants alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code. It was his case that the appellant came to his house, beat him and his wife with iron rods and threatened to kill them.
3. The son of the appellant also filed an information report, which was registered as Non− Cognizable Report (NCR), alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the respondent and his wife. This Report counter-alleged that the respondent and his wife came to the Appellants house, beat them up with wooden sticks and iron rods, and threatened to kill their family.
4. The magistrate ruled in favour of the appellants and directed the report filed by them to be registered as an FIR. Subsequently, the Magistrate framed charges against the respondent and his wife.
5. Being unsatisfied with the allegations made and charge sheet filed against him, the respondent instituted a fresh private complaint against the appellants under Section 200 of CrPC. This private complaint was filed that is about six years from the date of alleged incident. In the private complaint, not only new allegations were added but all allegations are wilder and different from the averments made in the previous NCR.
6. The private complaint for the first time mentions commission of offences under Section 429 of the IPC and Sections 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
7. The Sessions Judge made a new case in favour of the respondent by reading Section 506 Part II, IPC which is punishable by 7 years in the place of Section 506 of the IPC, probably only to bring the private complaint within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC.
8. An appeal has been filed challenging the orders of both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.
ISSUES
The following issues were analyzed by the Supreme Court:
- Whether the private complaint filed is valid or not.
- Whether or not multiple complaints can be filed by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 429 of the IPC: Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees.
- Section 468 of the CrPC: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.
- Section 506 of the IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Sec. 323 of the IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
- Sec. 504 of the IPC: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
- Sec. 10 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: Power of Board to make regulations.
- Sec. 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: Treating animals cruelly.
- Art. 142 of the Constitution: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. The counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned orders by relying on the following excerpt from this court’s decision in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & ors.,1 which held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint.
2. The court observed that it was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind.
3. The court said that if the complainant was aggrieved by lack of speedy investigation in the earlier case filed by him, the appropriate remedy would have been to apply to the Magistrate.
4. Taking into consideration the decision given in the Upkar Singh case, the court held that though the case was rendered in the context of a case involving cognizable offences, the same principle would also apply where a person gives information of a non-cognizable offence and subsequently lodges a private complaint with respect to the same offence against the same accused person.
5. The court held that while permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the Courts, as and when required in each case.
6. Therefore, the court, invoking the powers of Art. 142 of the Constitution, the bench quashed the proceedings against the respondent.
CONCLUSION
The crux of the present case revolves around the issue of whether or not multiple complaints can be filed by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident. The court, in the present case, decided in the negative.
The court, in the instant case, was of the view that permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. There is no equity in allowing them to be dragged into criminal proceedings pertaining to a petty offence, instituted 6 years after the alleged incident. The court held that the sword of Damocles cannot be allowed to forever hang on their heads, falling unpredictably at the whims of a litigant seeking to harass and persecute at will.
The court took the inference of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, which encapsulates the right to a speedy trial. This right has been interpreted to include not only the actual trial before the Court, but also the preceding stages of inquiry and police investigation as well. Therefore, by invoking the powers of Art. 142 of the Constitution, the court quashed the petitions filed against the respondent.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
