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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more