Skip to main content

No second complaint can be filed for the same complaint

In VIJAYCHANDRA PRAKASH SHUKLA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT, the matter before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was the filling of a second complaint before the same P.S. for the same complaint. The said action was challenged before the Hon'ble court which held that the law has amply entrusted power with the investigating agency that even if after conclusion of investigation pursuant to filing of the first FIR and even after submission of report under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., the officer in charge of Police Station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation normally with the leave of the Court and forward further evidence, if collected, and therefore, for the allegation made in the second complaint filed by respondent No.2 before the very same Police Station, there need not be any fresh investigation or registering of a second FIR.

In the light of aforesaid circumstances, if the test of ‘sameness’ is applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect to same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are in two or more parts of the very same transaction, it would be seen that the answer is clearly in affirmative as the consequential steps which are alleged in the second complaint are having a direct co-relation and connection with the original offence which has been alleged against petitioner No.1 having fraudulently secured the position as Managing Director of the Company and therefore, it appears that merely because some more accused persons are added in the second complaint and some subsequent information is said to have been executed would not alter the situation as it is well within the competence of investigating machinery to consider during the course of investigation of the original complaint while submitting the report and therefore, considering this set of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that second complaint is not maintainable and this is because of the fact that not only a fair trial is envisaged under the constitutional rights of a citizen, but a fair investigation is also a part and parcel of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, investigation also must be in fair, transparent and judicious manner as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. It is the duty of Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation and avoid any kind of mischief or harassment even to the accused persons as well. As appearing from the record, to continue with the fresh investigation of the second complaint may turn out to be a mischief, coercion or harassment as well since substantially the first complaint is covering almost every part of grievance consequently voiced out in the second complaint.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more