IMPORTANT POINT
Registration of complaint in nature of a counter case is not precluded from purview of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 154 and 162-Criminal case registered by police on complaint of respondent u/s 452 and 307 IPC-Appellant too lodged a complaint alleging offences u/s 506 and 307 IPC against respondents in regard to very incident but police did not register the case-On a petition of appellant u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate directed registration of offences and investigation and report-Police registered case for offences u/s 147, 148 and 307/149 IPC-Order directing registration of case was set aside by Sessions Court in revision and High Court declined to interfere holding that two FIRs were not permissible in respect of one and same incident as subsequent FIR was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.-Whether registration of complaint in the nature of a counter case has been excluded from purview of the Code? No.
       Held : Having carefully gone through the above judgment, we do not think that this Court in the said cases of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. has precluded an aggrieved person from filing a counter case as in the present case. This is clear from the observations made by this Court in the above said case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. in paragraph 27 of the judgment wherein while discussing the scope of Sections 154, 156 and 173(2) Cr.P.C., this is what the Court observed:-
       "In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offences alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
       Emphasis supplied.
       It is clear from the words emphasized hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter complaint by the accused in the 1st complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident. (Paras 15 and 16)
       In the instant case, it is seen in regard to the incident which took place on 20th May, 1995, the appellant and the 1st respondent herein have lodged separate complaints giving different versions but while the complaint of respondent was registered by the concerned police, the complaint of the appellant was not so registered, hence on his prayer the learned Magistrate was justified in directing the police concerned to register a case and investigate the same and report back. In our opinion, both the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the same is hit by Section 161 or 162 of the Code which, in our considered opinion, has absolutely no bearing on the question involved. Section 161 or 162 of the Code does not refer to registration of a case, it only speaks of a statement to be recorded by the police in the course of the investigation and its evidentiary value. (Para 24)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the registration of counter-complaints (counter FIRs) under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:

Counter-complaints are permissible: The registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case is not precluded from the purview of the Criminal Procedure Code, even if a prior FIR has been registered for the same incident. [IMPORTANT POINT]
Distinction between successive FIRs and counter-complaints: While a second or successive FIR (not being a counter-case) filed regarding the same transaction where investigation is underway or a final report has been submitted may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, this prohibition does not apply to a counter-complaint alleging a different version of the incident by the accused. (!) (!) (!)
Interpretation of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala: The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier judgment in T.T. Antony did not exclude the right to file a counter-complaint. The previous judgment only held that further complaints against the same accused by the same complainant (amounting to an improvement on facts) are prohibited under Section 162 Cr.P.C., but this does not bar a counter-complaint by the accused alleging a rival version. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Role of Magistrate under Section 156(3): If the police refuse to register a counter-complaint, it is open to the Magistrate at any stage to direct the police to register the complaint and investigate it, exercising an independent power that does not conflict with other provisions. (!) (!)
Irrelevance of Sections 161 and 162 Cr.P.C. to Registration: Sections 161 and 162 of the Code relate to the recording of statements during investigation and their evidentiary value, not to the registration of a criminal case. Therefore, they do not prohibit the registration of a counter-FIR. (!)
Rival versions justify separate FIRs: In cases where there are rival versions regarding the same episode, it is legally permissible to register two different FIRs, and the investigation can be carried out under both by the same agency. (!)
Prevention of false complaints: Allowing counter-complaints ensures that if a real accused lodges a false initial complaint, the aggrieved victim is not precluded from lodging their own complaint to bring the real culprit to book. (!)
Further investigation permissible: Even after a prior complaint is registered and investigation initiated, a further complaint is permissible if it reveals a larger conspiracy or new discoveries, as held in Ram Lal Narang. (!) (!)
Outcome in the present case: The Magistrate was justified in directing the police to register the appellant's complaint (Crime No. 48-A) under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 IPC, and the orders of the Sessions Judge and High Court setting aside this direction were set aside. (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-This Court while granting leave in this appeal doubted the correctness of the judgment of this Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Ors. 2001(6) SCC 181, hence referred this case to Hon ble Chief Justice of India for being heard by a larger Bench, in these circumstances this appeal is now before us for final disposal and to consider the correctness of law laid down in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (supra).

2. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:-

In regard to an incident which took place on 20th of May, 1995 at about 1.00 A.M., a complaint was lodged by the 1st respondent herein with the Sikhera Police Station in the village Fahimpur Kalan. In the said complaint appellant herein and some others persons were arrayed as accused. On the basis of the said complaint the police registered a Crime under Sections 452 and 307 IPC against the appellant and other named persons therein in Crime No. 48 of 1995 of that Police Station.

3. Appellant alleges that he too lodged a complaint in regard to the very same offence against the respondents herein for having committed offences punishable under Sections 506 and 307 IPC as against him and his family members but since the said complaint was not entertained by the police concerned, he tried to approach the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate and having failed in his attempts to get his complaint registered he filed petition under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.

4. The learned Magistrate having found prima facie case as per his order dated 11th July, 1995 directed the police, Sekhera Police Station to register a Crime against the accused persons named in the said complaint of the appellant and to investigate the same and submit a report within 2 months.

5. In view of the directions issued by the Magistrate the concerned police registered a Crime No. 48-A of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate directing the Registration of a complaint the 1st respondent herein preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the arguments allowed the Revision Petition and the order of the Magistrate, directing registration of a criminal case against the respondents herein at the instance of the appellant, was set aside.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge the appellant herein filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the High Court by the impugned order dated 10th of April, 2001 following an earlier judgment of the same court in the case of Ram Mohan Garg vs. State of U.P. 1990(27) A.C.C. 438 dismissed the Revision Petition. From the impugned judgment, it is seen in the said judgment of the Ram Mohan Garg vs. State of U.P. a Division Bench of that Court had held:-

"So far as the registration of a cross case on the basis of the First Information report is concerned, that does not appear to be permissible after the investigation in respect of a crime has commenced in views of the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, it was always possible that during investigation of a crime the version set up in the first information report may be found to be false version and some other person really responsible to the crime may be chargesheeted after a fair investigation. Hence, it was not necessary that a fresh first information report should have been registered on the basis of Annexure-3 which is a letter dated 22-6-89 to the Director General of Police in view of the provision of Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, it is always permissible in law for an aggrieved person to file a complaint before the competent Magistrate which can be investigated. Simultaneously according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1052

IMPORTANT POINTRegistration of complaint in nature of a counter case is not precluded from purview of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009

IMPORTANT POINT
Registration of complaint in nature of a counter case is not precluded from purview of the Criminal Procedure Code.