In the case of Jagdish Yadav Vs. Ram Nandan Yadav & Ors., 1990 SCC (Crl.) 648, it was observed that simply due to lodging of a cross-case the investigation ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court. As in view of the fact that the two cases related to the same incident it was open to the Magistrate after the two reports came to be placed before him to consider what action according to law is called for.
Likewise the scope of interference with investigation when there were cross cases has been considered in Kari Choudhary Vs. Sita Devi, AIR 2002 SC 441, the Court observed that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency.
In Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash, AIR 2004 SC 4320, the Court considered the issue and placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181, held that the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code is not excluded. Any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident. The Court held as under:-
"Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony case is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given herein below i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code."
In view of the above, pendency of cross-cases in respect of the same incident cannot be a sole and exclusive ground for interference with criminal proceedings.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें