Accused Cannot Be Subjected To Two Independent Criminal Prosecutions At Two Different Courts: Karnataka HC Orders Joint Trial Of Private Complaint And Police Case
The Karnataka High Court ordered a joint trial of a private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the police case arising out of an FIR pending against a Housing society accused of tampering with an e-stamp paper and a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU').
The Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “This consolidation will not only streamline the launching of criminal action against the accused but also facilitate a coherent and unified examination of the allegations and the evidence and thereby safeguarding the rights and interest of all the parties involved. This Court is compelled to invoke Section 407 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. having regard to overlapping nature of private complaint and police investigation both rooted in the same incident, raises intricate questions regarding jurisdiction, procedure and protection of legal rights. Section 210 of Cr.P.C. therefore, provides a statutory frame work to address situations where there are parallel legal proceedings arising from the same set of facts. The above said provision recognizes the potential for multiple Courts to be seized of the same matter and therefore, Section 210 of Cr.P.C. seeks to harmonize these proceedings to prevent duplication and conflicting judgments.”
Senior Advocate Diwakar K appeared for the Petitioners whereas Senior Advocate MR Rajgopal and HCGP MR Patil appeared for the Respondents.
Four criminal petitions were filed pertaining to the proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 255, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Complainant, who is a builder and developer, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the Housing Society in connivance with one other had caused him wrongful loss with a malafide intention by tampering with the MOU. The District Registrar under whose jurisdiction this E-stamp paper was generated for the MOU registered a police complaint which led to the registration of an FIR. Another police complaint was registered for similar offences.
The Court, therefore, examined whether a joint trial would reduce the burden on the courts and timely justice to the Accused. “Since the case on hand warrants consolidation of proceedings in private complaint (PCR 128/2019) and police case (C.C 53/2021), this Court is of the view that it is the District and Sessions Judge before whom the police case is seized pursuant to the committal order, has to undertake comprehensive examination of the private complaint as well as the police case.”, the Court said.
The Court held, “Given the filing of charge sheet in Cr.No.428/2020 and the pending nature of the private complaint in PCR.No.128/2019, it becomes imperative to consolidate these proceedings for a joint trial. This consolidation will not only streamline the launching of criminal action against the accused but also facilitate a coherent and unified examination of the allegations and the evidence and thereby safeguarding the rights and interest of all the parties involved. This Court is compelled to invoke Section 407 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. having regard to overlapping nature of private complaint and police investigation both rooted in the same incident, raises intricate questions regarding jurisdiction, procedure and protection of legal rights.”
Accordingly, the Court by exercising its power under Section 407 read with 482 of the CrPC transferred the complaint proceedings from the Judicial Magistrate at Magadi to the Sessions Judge, Ramanagar(police case) to avoid conflicting decisions.
Cause Title: Smt. Anitha R Alva and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Diwakar K, Advocate Abhishek K, Keshava Murthy
Respondents: Senior Advocate M.R. Rajgopal, HCGP MR Patil, Advocates H.N. Basavaraju, Nagaraja, Sudha D.