Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Prem Chand Singh against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another, setting aside the orders rejecting his discharge application and quashing the second FIR registered against him. The dispute arose from a general power of attorney allegedly executed by the respondent in favor of the appellant on 02.05.1985, based on which the appellant sold certain lands. The respondent lodged FIR No. 160 of 1989 on 14.09.1989 alleging that the power of attorney was forged. The appellant was acquitted in that trial on 07.08.1998 as the charge could not be established. Subsequently, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 to cancel the power of attorney, and later filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC leading to registration of FIR No. 114 of 2008 on 09.10.2008, alleging similar forgery and sale of lands, with additional sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. The appellant sought discharge on grounds of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC, but the Magistrate rejected it for lack of the acquittal order on record, and the Sessions Court affirmed it. The Supreme Court held that the substratum of both FIRs was the same general power of attorney, and the mere addition of sections did not change the nature of the allegations. The acquittal in the first FIR barred a second trial for the same offence. The Court also noted that the civil suit for cancellation of the power of attorney after acquittal amounted to an acknowledgment of its genuineness. Consequently, the second FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Double Jeopardy - Section 300 CrPC - Bar on Second Trial - The appellant was acquitted in FIR No. 160 of 1989 for offences under Sections 419/420 IPC relating to a forged general power of attorney. A subsequent FIR No. 114 of 2008 was lodged for the same general power of attorney with additional sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. The Supreme Court held that since the substratum of both FIRs was the same, the mere addition of sections does not constitute different ingredients, and the second prosecution is barred under Section 300 CrPC. (Paras 8-13)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Abuse of Process - Quashing of FIR - The Court found that the second FIR was filed after the appellant's acquittal and after the respondent had filed a civil suit for cancellation of the same power of attorney, which amounted to an acknowledgment of its genuineness. The subsequent prosecution was held to be a complete abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. (Paras 9-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the subsequent prosecution of the appellant for the same general power of attorney, after his acquittal in the first FIR, is barred under Section 300 CrPC and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders dated 18.12.2015, 31.05.2016, and the impugned order dated 01.03.2017, and quashed FIR No. 114 of 2008 dated 09.10.2008 and all consequential proceedings.
Law Points
- Double Jeopardy
- Section 300 CrPC
- Abuse of Process of Law
- Same Substratum of FIRs
- Bar on Second Trial
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 4592 of 2017)
Navin Sinha, Krishna Murari
Pradeep Kant (for appellant), Amit Yadav (for respondent complainant)
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against rejection of discharge application and affirmation thereof, seeking quashing of second FIR on grounds of double jeopardy.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought quashing of FIR No. 114 of 2008 and all consequential proceedings, and discharge from the case.
Filing Reason
Appellant was acquitted in first FIR (No. 160 of 1989) for forgery of general power of attorney, but a second FIR (No. 114 of 2008) was lodged for the same power of attorney with additional sections, which the appellant contended was barred under Section 300 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
Judicial Magistrate Class II Gonda rejected discharge application on 18.12.2015; 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda dismissed Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2016 on 31.05.2016; High Court order dated 01.03.2017 (impugned) declined interference.
Issues
Whether the second FIR based on the same general power of attorney is barred under Section 300 CrPC after acquittal in the first FIR.
Whether the subsequent prosecution constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The second FIR is based on the same general power of attorney and conceals the acquittal; the civil suit for cancellation acknowledges its genuineness; the prosecution is barred by double jeopardy and is an abuse of process.
Respondent: The ingredients of the two FIRs are different as the second FIR includes Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC and alleges impersonation; the discharge application was rightly rejected.
Ratio Decidendi
If the substratum of two FIRs is the same, the mere addition of sections in the subsequent FIR does not constitute different ingredients to justify a second trial. A person acquitted of an offence cannot be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence under Section 300 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
In view of the conclusion that the substratum of the two FIRs are the same and that the appellant has already stood acquitted on 07.08.1998 of the charge with regard to forging any general power of attorney of the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent prosecution of the appellant in FIR No. 114 of 2008 dated 09.10.2008 is completely unsustainable.
Procedural History
FIR No. 160 of 1989 was lodged on 14.09.1989; appellant acquitted on 07.08.1998. Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007. On 09.10.2008, respondent filed application under Section 156(3) CrPC leading to FIR No. 114 of 2008. Appellant filed discharge application which was rejected on 18.12.2015. Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2016 was dismissed on 31.05.2016. High Court dismissed further challenge on 01.03.2017. Supreme Court granted leave and allowed appeal on 07.02.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 156(3), 300, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
