The application of the clean hands doctrine in criminal proceedings and the interpretation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India in relation to prosecution and punishment for the same offence.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

A very peculiar argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant while putting a challenge to the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1847 of 2023, Jeevan Vs. Neeraj Singh Adhikari, being the complaint proceedings drawn for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

2. Firstly, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued the matter that the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands for the reason being that much prior to the registration of the complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC on 04.03.2023, since the complainant has not disclosed the fact about the proceedings under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC, it will amount that the respondent complainant had not approached the Court with clean hands.

3. Secondly, he argues that the complaint proceedings would be bad in the eyes of law, because initiation of the complaint proceedings, at a subsequent stage will amount to be a recurring proceedings for the same cause of action without disclosing the fact of institution of the earlier proceedings under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC.

4. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the applicant argues that initiation of the complaint proceedings on 04.03.2023 would attract the provisions contained under sub-Article (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, on the pretext that nobody can be sentenced or prosecuted twice for the same offences.

5. As far as the initiation of the complaint proceedings are concerned, they were the proceedings which were drawn under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC. Let us make it very clear at this juncture, that once the proceedings are contemplated to be drawn under the procedural criminal law, and it is not punitive in nature, rather reformative. It’s only for the purpose to ensure to maintain peace and tranquility. It’s parlance could not be sought, in a complaint proceedings drawn under the penal provisions by invoking Section 156(3) of CrPC. Thus, invoking the provisions contained under Section 107/116 of CrPC, since it only intends to maintain peace and tranquility amongst the public for any wrongful or an overt act that may have occasioned resulting into a breach of peace or disturbing of public tranquility.

6. Widely speaking, Section 107 of CrPC is only for the purposes to ensure that the public at large, their peace is not breached, because of any untoward act and that is why any orders which are required based on the same were based upon the bonds, which are to be executed by the accused persons against whom the proceedings under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC have been drawn.

7. Apart from it, the provisions contained under Section 116 of CrPC, where it contains that a penal action could be taken against the person is only on an occasion when the person who is called upon to furnish a bond, fails to furnish that bond then only the penal provision comes into picture.

8. Thus, the procedural law of Section 107, which has to be read with Section 116 of CrPC cannot be read in parlance to the provisions contained under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, for which the complaint has been drawn by the respondent before the competent Court, on which the cognizance have been taken because it’s a penal action to be taken on a criminal act of an accused which is absolutely independent.

9. The argument, as extended by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the non-disclosure of the fact about the prior initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC, on which the report was submitted by the Sub Inspector (Annexure 3 to the C482 Application), in fact, this document its not an order under Section 107 or Section 116 of CrPC, but it is rather only a report which has been submitted by the Sub Inspector to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, thus the document which has been attempted to be read as if it was a positive action taken against the compla