Disposed

Shravan and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024A482/14068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court declined to quash subsequent complaint proceedings initiated on same facts despite prior FIR and final report, observing no absolute bar exists but leaving it to the Magistrate to assess maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with observation that Magistrate will note facts and observations from cited precedents regarding subsequent complaints.

Shravan and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145300

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14068 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shravan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Sachan,Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for applicants and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for State.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 857 of 2024 (Ishwar Vs. Shravan and others), under Sections 302, 328, 329 IPC, Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

¶8

Complaint (father of deceased son, Praveen) has filed a FIR with regard to an occurrence took place on 15.06.2018 alleging that applicants’ side have poisoned his son. Investigation was conducted on FIR, however, a final report was submitted. Complainant then filed a protest petition, however, vide order dated 02.08.2021 said protest petition was rejected and final report filed in Case Crime No. 238 of 2018, under Sections 302, 328, 329 IPC, was accepted.

¶9

Aforesaid order dated 02.08.2021 was challenged before this Court by filing Application under Section 482 No. 16295 of 2023, at the instance of complainant, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.05.2023.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicants submits that on same set of facts and allegations, on which earlier FIR was lodged and after investigation final report was filed, wherein protest petition was rejected and challenge to it before this Court was dismissed as

¶11

withdrawn, son of the then complainant filed a complaint case on 14.12.2023 against applicants, being proposed accused. He submits that in complaint case statement of complainant has already been recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicants submits that in complaint the outcome of earlier proceedings, i.e., FIR was disclosed. He fairly submits that at this stage according to his instructions, no adverse order has been passed, i.e., applicants have not been summoned to face trial. He, however, submits that on same set of facts a subsequent complaint at the instance of son of the then complainant would be an abuse of process of law and in this regard he refers the judgments passed by Supreme Court in T.T. Antony Versus State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2013)6 SCC 348.

¶13

Learned AGA appearing for State submits that there is no absolute bar to file a complaint case despite on investigation of same facts a final report was submitted.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions on basis of material available on record.

¶15

At this stage, factum of lodging FIR by father of present complainant and after investigation submission of final report and thereafter rejection of protest petition as well as challenge to it before this Court culminated in withdrawal of application, is not much disputed since it is based on record.

¶16

Present complainant has filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on same set of facts and he has disclosed in para 7 of complaint about earlier proceedings. Therefore, he has approached Magistrate concerned with bona fide. As referred above, before Magistrate concerned proceedings are underway and statement of complainant has already been recorded. No adverse order is placed on record, therefore, Magistrate has still

¶17

not applied its mind to pass an order under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C., as the case may be. At this stage, to interfere with proceedings would not be proper as this Court is of the view that there is no absolute bar. However, in the given set of circumstances, Magistrate is at liberty to take a view that subsequent complaint may not be maintainable.

¶18

In view of above, the application is disposed of with observation that Magistrate concerned will take note of above referred facts as well as observations made in T.T. Antony (supra) and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra).

¶19

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 AK

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shravan and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasik Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Prakash Chandra Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rubi Suryavanshi vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikrant Choudhary and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harun vs State of Up and 2 Others