Multiple complaints against same accused by same party impermissible: SC

OVERVIEW:

In the case of Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P. , the Supreme Court ruled that multiple complaints against the same accused by the same party for the same incident is impermissible since it will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings at the same time. Such ruling was brought about by a bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

"Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the right to life and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of law. Permitting 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,” commented the Bench.

BACKGROUND 
   

• On 5.08.2012, the complainant filed a Non­- Cognizable Report against his neighbour, the respondent, alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code because of the involvement of a physical altercation between the appellants and the respondent and his wife. It was alleged that the Appellants came to his house, beat him and his wife with iron rods, and threatened to kill them.
• An FIR in this regard was filed in the Daurula Police Station, Uttar Pradesh.
• There appeared to have been a tussle between the appellant and the respondents since 2006 and it seemed like they have been at loggerheads ever since.
• They appeared to have lodged several complaints about each other and refused to co-exist peacefully as neighbours and have been fighting a lot of legal battles with each other.
• The Appellants filed an application under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Magistrate on 27.04.2017, almost 5 years after the alleged incident, seeking permission for the police to investigate the previous Non-Cognizable Report (NCR).  
• On 17.09.2017, a charge sheet was filed against the Respondent and his wife on the basis of such investigation under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Subsequently, the Magistrate framed charges against Respondent and his wife.
• Such aggrieved respondent, filed a fresh private complaint against the appellant on 11.05.2018, after about six years from the original complaint.
• This private complaint for the first time mentioned commission of offences under Section 429, IPC and Sections 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
• The Magistrate issued the process to this meeting, the Sessions Judge and later, the Allahabad High Court confirmed such order of the Magistrate.

FURTHER DETAILS 

The accused challenged such subsequent private complaint before the Apex Court, both the complaints having been lodged by the same parties, pertaining to the same incident, against the same accused.

The Court, while holding it impermissible to lodge multiple complaints against the same accused, by the same party for the same incident, noted that one of the accused is 76 years old, and the other accused are also suffering from multiple ailments like epileptic seizures,etc. and went on to observe, “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 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. We gain strength in our conclusions from 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.”

CONCLUSION 

The court recognised the subsequent private complaint “as a concerted effort to mislead the Magistrate with the oblique motive of harassing the Appellants with a frivolous and vexatious case against them.”
The Court held it impermissible to lodge multiple complaints against the same accused for the same party for the same incident and held it violative of the Right to Life as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed the proceedings where the proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive and commented that “it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants.”

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT’S VIEW ON MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS? DO LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!!