Ravinder Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2013, Decided on 11th January,
2013
Appellant filed two quashing
proceedings on the same facts; the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the
principle of cause of action estoppel and held:
“The principle of issue-estoppel is also
known as ‘cause of action estoppel’ and the same is different from the principle
of double jeopardy or; autre fois acquit, as embodied in Section 403 Cr.P.C. This
principle applies where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on
a former occasion, and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused. Such
a finding would then constitute an estoppel, or res judicata against the
prosecution but would not operate as a bar to the trial and conviction of the
accused, for a different or distinct offence. It would only preclude the
reception of evidence that will disturb that finding of fact already recorded
when the accused is tried subsequently, even for a different offence, which might
be permitted by Section 403(2) Cr.P.C. Thus, the rule of issue estoppel
prevents re-litigation of an issue which has been determined in a criminal
trial between the parties. If with respect to an offence, arising out of a
transaction, a trial has taken place and the accused has been acquitted,
another trial with respect to the offence alleged to arise out of the
transaction, which requires the court to arrive at a conclusion inconsistent
with the conclusion reached at the earlier trial, is prohibited by the rule of
issue estoppel. In order to invoke the rule of issue estoppel, not only the
parties in the two trials should be the same but also, the fact in issue,
proved or not, as present in the earlier trial, must be identical to what is
sought to be re-agitated in the subsequent trial. If the cause of action was
determined to exist, i.e., judgment was given on it, the same is said to be merged
in the judgment. If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can
no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam”. [Para 18]
The court also referred following case laws:
Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2012) 1
SCC 130, wherein the SC held:
“It is evident
that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint
even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the
basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without
understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be
placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts
after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his
favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier
complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the
complainant on merit.”
Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Anr., AIR
1982 SC 1238, wherein the SC held that it is equally true that chagrined and
frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration
by enabling them to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts in a cheap
manner. In such a fact-situation, the court must not hesitate to quash criminal
proceedings.
The Court also noted following case laws:
Manipur Administration, Manipur v. Thokchom, Bira Singh, AIR
1965 SC 87
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 961
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiligada Meeraiah & Anr.,
AIR 1970 SC 771
Masud Khan v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 28
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856
Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 111
Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar & Anr., AIR 2005 SC
626
Swamy Atmananda and Ors. v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and
Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2392).
Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC
876
Jatinder Singh & Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur AIR 2001 SC 784
Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr., AIR 2003 SC
702
Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. v. Fazru AIR 2005 SC 38
To see full text follow the link: