Recently, the Supreme Court found itself examining a peculiar criminal dispute in which an incident from years ago had given rise to two parallel proceedings, both originating from the same version of events. The matter drew the Court’s attention because it appeared to involve an attempt to reopen what had already been investigated and acted upon, raising concerns about whether the criminal system was being stretched beyond its legitimate purpose.
The case arose from an FIR registered a decade ago alleging unlawful assembly, assault and trespass. During the investigation, the police filed a final report but omitted certain individuals, concluding that there was no material against them. The trial Court accepted the negative report and proceeded only against the remaining accused in a separate calendar case. For years, the complainant did not challenge the exclusion of those who had been dropped. Nearly two and a half years later, however, a private complaint was suddenly filed under procedural law, again accusing the very individuals who had been cleared earlier, and based on the same occurrence. The magistrate took cognizance, prompting the affected persons to approach the High Court to quash the proceedings, but the High Court declined relief on the ground that an additional offence had been introduced in the later complaint.
Before the Supreme Court, one side argued that the belated complaint was a textbook example of abuse of process. They emphasised that a full investigation had already been completed, the complainant had never filed a protest petition at the appropriate time, and the fresh complaint merely repackaged the same facts. The opposite side insisted that the second complaint was permissible, citing precedent to argue that in exceptional situations, a fresh proceeding could be maintained, particularly when a new offence was alleged and when the investigating agency had failed to look into certain aspects.
The Supreme Court, however, found the situation fundamentally flawed. It observed that “this is nothing but an abuse of the process of law”, noting that a detailed investigation had already culminated in a negative report which the complainant had consciously chosen not to challenge. The Court stressed that the occurrence was identical, the informant was the same and that “by merely adding an offence for the same occurrence… a second complaint… is certainly not maintainable.” Referring to earlier jurisprudence, the Court highlighted that the prohibition on multiple complaints by the same informant for the same incident was clearly established and that “we are dealing with the liberty of a person and, therefore, the question of double jeopardy would arise.”
In its final view, the Court held that the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers to prevent misuse of the criminal machinery. It therefore set aside the order declining relief and quashed the proceedings pending before the magistrate insofar as the appellants were concerned, while making it clear that the ongoing trial arising from the original police case would continue unaffected.
Case Title: Ranimol & Ors. V. The State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No.: SLP [CRL.] NO. 2285/2022]
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. M. Gireesh Kumar, AOR Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Sanjay Singh and Adv. Tarun
Counsel for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, AOR A. Venayagam Balan, Adv. Santhanalakshmi, Adv. Puneet Thakur, Adv. N. Narasimhamurthy, AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Adv. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mahabir Singh and Adv. Anshul Saharan.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
