1. Dispute over supply of goods — Complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC — Subsequent FIR on same subject matter — Challenge to cognizance under Section 401 CrPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1051
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH), JJ.
Praveen Kothari & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1887 of 2011
Decided On : 07-11-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The filing of a subsequent F.I.R. based on the same allegations as an earlier stayed complaint does not constitute an abuse of process of law.
The filing of a subsequent F.I.R. based on the same allegations as an earlier stayed complaint does not constitute an abuse of process of law.
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 200, and 401 - Dispute regarding the filing of a subsequent F.I.R. based on the same allegations as an earlier complaint - The High Court's dismissal of the Revision Application for quashing the F.I.R. was upheld, as the earlier complaint was stayed and the issue of simultaneous prosecution did not survive. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from an order for the supply of woolen yarn, leading to a complaint filed by respondent No.4 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The appellants challenged the subsequent F.I.R. claiming it was an abuse of process of law.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as the earlier complaint had been stayed, and the issue of simultaneous prosecution was resolved.
Issues: The main issue was whether the filing of the F.I.R. constituted an abuse of process given the earlier complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the earlier complaint was stayed, the subsequent F.I.R. did not constitute an abuse of process, and the dismissal of the Revision Application was justified.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, AOR Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Shiva Shankar, Adv. Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Adv. Ms. Ritumbhara Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Rachna Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Misra, Adv. Ms. Deepika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, AOR Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Shiva Shankar, Adv. Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Adv. Ms. Ritumbhara Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Rachna Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Misra, Adv. Ms. Deepika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Filing of a subsequent FIR based on the same allegations as a prior complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Para 3 )
3. The issue of simultaneous prosecution ceases to exist when one proceeding is withdrawn, and prior orders refusing to quash the FIR are final. (Para 5 )
4. Simultaneous prosecution of two proceedings on the same subject matter is resolved upon the withdrawal of one such proceeding. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Prior complaint to be treated as withdrawn — Exemption from personal appearance granted to appellants unless mandatory. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. What is the effect of withdrawing one of two simultaneous criminal proceedings based on the same subject matter?
When one of the simultaneous proceedings is withdrawn, the legal issue regarding the simultaneous prosecution of two proceedings on the same subject matter no longer survives. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does a final order by the High Court refusing to quash an FIR preclude further challenges to the same FIR in a subsequent appeal?
Yes, if the High Court has already declined to quash the FIR and that order has attained finality, there is no further reason to entertain an appeal on those grounds. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Can a trial court grant exemption from personal appearance to the accused?
Yes, the trial court may grant exemption from personal appearance provided the accused is represented by an advocate, unless their personal presence is mandatory. (Para 8 )
ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The dispute between the appellants and respondent No.4 arises out of the order passed by respondent No.4 on 21.10.2002 for supply of woolen yarn. On 08.07.2003, respondent No.4 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi (hereinafter referred to as “the C.J.M.). After the complaint was registered, the learned C.J.M. passed an order directing that it shall be treated as a regular criminal case and therefore, he directed that the procedure provided under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. should be followed. The said order was passed on 08.07.2003 which was challenged by respondent No.4. The challenge failed and the said order attained finality. It appears that respondent No.4 filed a complaint on 12.01.2004 in the same subject matter which was the same subject matter of earlier complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. A First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “the F.I.R.”) was registered on the basis of the same. Even charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. In the meanwhile, the appellants filed a petition for quashing the F.I.R. By order dated 29.01.2004, the High Court declined to interfere by observing that on the basis of application made by respondent No.4, the complaint filed by respondent No.4 had been stayed. The High Court granted protection from arrest by declining to quash the subsequent F.I.R. and the proceeding based on that. Thereafter, the appellants filed a Revision Application under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court for quashing the order of cognizance on the charge-sheet filed. Initially, while admitting the Revision Application, stay was granted. By the impugned order, Revision Application was dismissed.
3. The only ground which was urged before the High Court and before this Court is that earlier complaint and the F.I.R. contained the same allegations and therefore, filing the F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has pointed out that the first complaint filed by respondent No.4 has been stayed by the learned C.J.M. by the order dated 27.01.2004 in exercise of powers under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. He has produced the copies of the said order. He states that the complaint has not proceeded as the stay is operating. He also makes a statement, on instructions, that respondent No.4 will apply for withdrawal of the said complaint bearing No.125/2003 pending before the Court of learned C.J.M., Bhadohi. We accept the said assurance.
5. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, now the issue regarding simultaneous prosecution of two proceedings does not survive. As stated earlier, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. has been rejected by the High Court and that order has attained finality.
6. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed.
7. A copy of this Order shall be forwarded to the Court of learned C.J.M., Bhadohi. On receipt of the copy of this Order, the learned C.J.M., Bhadohi shall dispose of case No.125/2003 as withdrawn. All contentions on merits of the criminal case are left open.
8. We make it clear that unless the personal presence of the appellants is mandatory, the Trial Court shall grant exemption from personal appearance provided that they are always represented by an advocate.
