Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Mahendra P. Dholakia, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR dated 05/03/2015 registered against him for offences under Sections 193, 211, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the consequent charge-sheet. The FIR was registered on the basis of an order dated 24/02/2015 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on a complaint dated 04/02/2015 filed by the respondent No.2, Mr. Deepak Kripalani. The principal ground for quashing was that the respondent No.2 had earlier filed an identical complaint in the year 2013 before the same Magistrate, which was pending consideration, and therefore, the second complaint on the same allegations was not maintainable. The court examined the facts and found that the allegations in both complaints were identical. The court held that allowing a second complaint on identical allegations when the first is pending would be an abuse of the process of court. The court relied on the principle analogous to autrefois acquit and autrefois convict under Section 300 Cr.P.C. and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and charge-sheet. The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Second Complaint - Maintainability - Section 300 Cr.P.C. - The court held that a second complaint on identical allegations, when the first complaint is pending, is not maintainable and amounts to an abuse of the process of court. The court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet based on the second complaint. (Paras 2-20)
B) Indian Penal Code - Offences of Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, etc. - Sections 406, 420, 193, 211 IPC - The court found that the allegations in the second complaint were identical to those in the first complaint, and therefore, the subsequent proceedings were liable to be quashed. (Paras 2-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second complaint on identical allegations, when the first complaint is pending, is maintainable and whether the FIR and charge-sheet based on such second complaint are liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR dated 05/03/2015 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto.
Law Points
- Second complaint on same allegations is not maintainable
- Section 300 Cr.P.C.
- principles analogous to autrefois acquit and autrefois convict
- abuse of process of court
- quashing of FIR under inherent powers
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 64
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5073 of 2015
S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Ms. Sneha Singh a/w Mr. Irfan Unwala, Mr. Aman Dhruva and Mr. Darshit Jain i/by Sneha Singh and Associates for the Petitioner; Mr. Subodh Desai a/w Mr. A.S. Pal i/by Ms. Purnima Singh for Respondent No.2; Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for Respondent – State
The State of Maharashtra and Mr. Deepak Kripalani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR and charge-sheet
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR dated 05/03/2015 and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto
Filing Reason
Second complaint on identical allegations when first complaint was pending
Previous Decisions
Order dated 24/02/2015 by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of FIR
Issues
Whether a second complaint on identical allegations, when the first complaint is pending, is maintainable?
Whether the FIR and charge-sheet based on such second complaint are liable to be quashed?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the second complaint on identical allegations is not maintainable and amounts to abuse of process.
Respondent No.2 argued that the complaints were not identical and the second complaint was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
A second complaint on identical allegations, when the first complaint is pending, is not maintainable and amounts to an abuse of the process of court. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
Judgment Excerpts
The principal ground for pressing the prayer for quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet is that the Respondent No.2 (original complainant) had filed an identical complaint earlier in the year 2013 before the Magistrate, which was pending consideration and filing of the said subsequent complaint in the year 2015 on the same allegations was not maintainable.
The court held that allowing a second complaint on identical allegations when the first is pending would be an abuse of the process of court.
Procedural History
The respondent No.2 filed a complaint in 2013 before the Magistrate, which was pending. Subsequently, on 04/02/2015, the respondent No.2 filed another complaint on the same allegations. The Magistrate passed an order on 24/02/2015 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of FIR, which was registered on 05/03/2015. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 193, 211, 406, 420
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 156(3), 300, 482
