Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Prem Chand Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.4592 of 2017)
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 300 – Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence – Subject matter of both FIRs is same general power of attorney and sales made by appellant in pursuance of same – If substratum of two FIRs are common, mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds – Substratum of two FIRs are same and appellant has already stood acquitted of charge with regard to forging any general power of attorney of respondent – Subsequent prosecution of appellant in another FIR is completely unsustainable – Impugned FIR set aside. (Paras 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has challenged the order dated 18.12.2015 rejecting his application for discharge and the affirmation of the same on 31.05.2016 in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2016 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda (U.P.).
Findings of the Court:
If the substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 18.12.2015 rejecting his application for discharge and the affirmation of the same on 31.05.2016 in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2016 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda (U.P.).
3. The respondent no.2 is stated to have given a general power of attorney to the appellant on 02.05.1985 and on the basis of which the appellant sold certain lands belonging to the respondent. The respondent lodged FIR No. 160 of 1989 on 14.09.1989 that he had never executed any general power of attorney in favour of the appellant and that the appellant has forged general power of attorney to sell his lands illegally. The appellant was acquitted in the trial as the charge could not be established. Though no records are available, the acquittal is not disputed by counsel for respondent. The respondent then filed Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 to cancel the general power of attorney. On 09.10.2008, the respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court which was forwarded to the police leading to registration of FIR No. 114 of 2008 on 09.10.2008 alleging that the appellant had forged general power of attorney and on the basis of the same had sold certain lands of the respondent.
That earlier also the appellant had sold lands of the respondent in like manner.
4. The appellant filed an application for discharge referring to his acquittal dated 07.08.1998 under Section 419 or 420 Cr.P.C. pleading that he could not be tried for the same offence twice and that the FIR was based on concealment of facts with regard to the earlier acquittal. The Judicial Magistrate Class II Gonda rejected the discharge application simplicitor on the ground that the order of acquittal dated 07.08.1998 had not been brought on record. Revision against the same was dismissed holding that the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant can more appropriately be urged at the time of framing of the charges.
5. Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the order of acquittal dated 07.08.1998 and the subsequent institution of Civil Suit No.353 of 2007 for the cancellation of the general power of attorney executed by the respondent is not in dispute. The subsequent FIR on 09.10.2008 itself refers to the general power of attorney which was the subject matter of FIR No. 160 of 1989 but conceals the order of acquittal of the appellant. It is submitted that in the facts of the case, the institution of the FIR on 09.10.2008 long years after execution of general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 is, therefore, a complete abuse of the process of law and the proceedings are fit to be quashed. Referring to Section 300 Cr.P.C. it is submitted that the appellant could not have been tried for the same offence twice at the behest of the respondent who is the complainant himself in both the FIRs.
6. Mr. Amit Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant, submits that the High Court has declined interference since the ingredients of the two FIRs were different. While the FIR No. 160 of 1989 was under Section 419 or 420 IPC the second FIR was under Sections 467, 468 and 471 also. Furthermore, the second FIR contains allegations that the appellant put up an imposter in place of the respondent before the registration authorities and collusively executed sale deed in respect of his lands along with Sushil Kumar Singh and Arvind in pursuance of a general power of attorney which respondent had never executed. The discharge application was, therefore, rightly rejected and interference declined in revision.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The FIR No. 160 of 1989 alleges that the respondent on account of his job invariably stayed outside. The appellant had created a forged general power of attorney from the respondent in his name with regard to his lands bearing Gata no. 77/0.87 decimal and sold it on the basis of the forged general p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
