Skip to main content

Principles Of Res Judicata Would Apply To Criminal Proceeding

Cause Title : Mrs. Sasikala Menon vs State Of Kerala, CRL.MC NO. 6415 OF 2022, Kerala High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 25.01.2023

Corum : Honourable Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen

Citied: 

2017 (5) KHC 177 : (2018) 1 SCC 560 : 2017 (4) KLT 444 : AIR 2017 SC 4594], Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta

2021 KHC 6120 : (2021) 6 SCC 258 : 2021 KHC OnLine 6120 : 2021 (2) KLT SN 35 : AIR 2021 SC 1308], P.Mohanraj & Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited

P.Reghuthaman v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Background

This petition was filed to quash the complaints filed  before the Magistrate court by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Petitioner had raised issue of the alleged mental disorder of the Respondent in order to have the complainant dismissed while the Respondent argued that the issue of the disorder has been raised earlier by the Petitioner and has been dismissed therefore res judicator should apply.

The question before the court was whether res judicator or constructive res judicator is applicable in a criminal matter.

Judgment

The Court agreeing with the Respondent and referring to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in P.Reghuthaman v. State of Kerala & Ors., observed that it has been observed in the said matter that the said question relating to application of principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata was considered elaborately by the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram and another v. State of Rajasthan and another [MANU/SC/0090/1972 : (1972) 2 SCC 466], which was followed by His Lordship Justice H.R. Khanna in State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand Jain [MANU/SC/0194/1973 : AIR 1973 SC 2131]. It was repeatedly held that principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata are squarely applicable to criminal proceedings also. The decisions in Bhagat Ram (supra) and Tarachand Jain (supra) were clearly approved by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, it is no more open for any further debate.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more