P. SREEKUMAR versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 19-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
                                     P. SREEKUMAR
 v.
    STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
 (Criminal Appeal No. 408 of  2018)
  MARCH 19, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Two FIRs filed
in relation to the same offence and against the same accused –
Whether the subsequent FIR was liable to be quashed – In the instant
case, appellant was Chief Executive Trustee of a Trust and respondent
no.2 was one of the trustees and respondent no.3 was treasurer of
the Trust – Respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the appellant,
respondent no.3 and three bank officials alleging that they conspired
together to defraud the Trust and siphoned off around Rs.42 lacs
of the Trust – FIR was registered – Subsequently, appellant also
filed an FIR against respondent no.3 alleging fraud and forgery –
Appellant failed in seeking quashing of proceedings pending against
him – However, respondent no.3 successfully moved application
for quashing of FIR filed against him by appellant on the ground
that he cannot be made to face two trials on the same set of facts
and for same offences in two different courts – Hence appeal –
Held:  The second FIR filed by the appellant against respondent
No.3 though related to the same incident for which the first FIR was
filed by respondent No.2 against the appellant, respondent No.3
and the three Bank officials, yet the second FIR was legally
maintainable and could be entertained for being tried on its merits
firstly since the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who
had filed the first FIR, secondly it was filed by the appellant as a
counter-complaint against respondent No.3 and thirdly the first FIR
was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas
the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the
allegations made in the first FIR – Trial against respondent no.3
restored to its file for being tried on merits in accordance
with law.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 665
 665
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : There is no prohibition in law to file the second
FIR and once it is filed, such FIR is capable of being taken note
of and tried on merits in accordance with law.  The second FIR
filed by the appellant against respondent No.3 though related to
the same incident for which the first FIR was filed by respondent
No.2 against the appellant, respondent No.3 and three Bank
officials, yet the second FIR being in the nature of a counter-
complaint against respondent No.3 was legally maintainable and
could be entertained for being tried on its merits.   It is for the
reasons that  firstly, the second FIR was not filed by the same
person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the
situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the
case here; Second, it was filed by the appellant as a counter-
complaint against respondent No.3; Third, the first FIR was
against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the
second FIR was based on the allegations different from the
allegations made in the first FIR. The Magistrate will now proceed
to try and decide the case on merits and while doing so, he will
be free to examine all the issues arising in the case from all the
angles in the light of the evidence that will be adduced by the
parties.  If the Magistrate finds that the material brought on record
against any person(s) including the appellant herein in the
evidence indicating the involvement of any such person(s) in
commission of the alleged offences, he will be free to proceed
against any such person(s) in accordance with law and bring the
proceedings to its logical end uninfluenced by any of our
observations. [Paras 31, 32, 33, 35, 36] [672-G-H; 673-A-C,
F-G]
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC
292 ; Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
(2013) 5 SCC 148 : [2013] 1 SCR 1053 – relied on.
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal (1992) 1 Suppl.
SCC 335 : [1990]  3 Suppl. SCR  259 ; Madhu Limaye
v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 :
[1978] 1 SCR 749 ; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
AIR 1960 SC 866 : [1960] SCR 388 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
667
Case Law Reference
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259     referred to
Para 26
[1978] 1 SCR 749
      referred to
Para 26
[1960] SCR 388
      referred to
Para 26
(2004) 13 SCC 292
      relied on
Para 28
[2013] 1 SCR 1053
      relied on
Para 30
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.