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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more