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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
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

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