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

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more