Skip to main content

Second FIR can be filed on same facts under certain circumstances

In OM PRAKASH SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS, the appellant purchased fully automatic Biochemistry Analyser of foreign make which was found to be defective. Thereafter as suggested by the local vendors of the the said company, the appellant purchased a more expensive type of the same machine of the same manufacturer through the same vendor. But when this machine also proved to be defective and the vendor did not show any concern, the appellant lodged an FIR against which charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna quashed the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter the appellant contacted the Italian manufacturer who directed them to a third party service provider who found several parts to be replaced by duplicates and also submitted a report on the same. The appellant again lodged an FIR against which charge sheet was again submitted before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences which was also quashed by the High Court.

The Supreme Court on appeal held that it was erroneous on part of the High Court to conceive that the present proceedings based on the subsequent complaint are liable to be quashed merely because the earlier criminal proceedings were quashed without considering the merits of the matter. The second FIR was filed based on new set of facts and new set of allegations and not based on old set of allegations as have been made in the earlier FIR. At that time, the appellant and his wife were not aware about replacement of the original parts with the duplicate ones. The Service report also was not in existence at that time. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan was justified in taking the cognizance, since prima facie case is found against respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Supreme Court in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthy v. the State of U.P. has observed that “the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit”. In the matter on hand, the complainant/appellant came to know certain facts relating to the replacement of parts of the machine after the disposal of the first complaint, that too after getting a service report from “Key Pharma Limited, Delhi”, and, therefore, there is no bar for the appellant to lodge second complaint.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more