REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7970 of 2014)

P. Sreekumar                  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Kerala & Ors.    ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final

judgment  and  order  dated  27.05.2014  passed  by

the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum in Criminal

M.C.  No.2641  of  2007  whereby  the  High  Court

allowed the petition filed by the accused-respondent

No.3  herein  and  quashed  the  FIR(Annexure  II),

1

charge-sheet(Annexure  III)  and  all  consequent

proceedings  arising  therefrom  pending  as  C.C.

No.2682  of  2002  on  the  file  of  the  JFCM-II,

Ernakulum.  

3) Facts  involved  in  the  case  lie  in  a  narrow

compass so also the issue involved in the appeal is

a short one. The facts are mentioned hereinbelow:

4) There is one public charitable Trust by name -

Vidyodaya  Trust  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the

Trust")  having  its  office  at  S.N.  Junction,

Palarivattom in  the  State  of  Kerala.  The  Trust  is

engaged  in  the  educational  activities  and  runs

educational institutions in the State of Kerala.  

5) The  appellant  herein  is  one  of  the  Chief

Executive Trustees of the Trust whereas respondent

No.2 herein is one of the Trustees and respondent

No.3 was a Treasurer of the Trust at the relevant

time.  

2

6) On 17.10.2001, respondent No.2 (Trustee) filed

a  private  complaint  against  the  appellant,

respondent  No.3  (Treasurer)  and  three  Bank

officials of the Bank in the Court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate,  Ernakulum  (CC  No.15877  of  2001)

under  Section  200  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Annexure-P-14).

7) In the complaint, it was inter alia alleged that

the  appellant,  respondent  No.3  and  three  bank

officials conspired together to defraud the Trust and

to give effect to their conspiracy managed to siphon

off  around Rs.42 lacs of  the  Trust  from its  Bank

accounts by manipulation and forging the accounts

books and several documents of the Trust.

8) Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, an FIR in

Crime  Case  No.817  of  2001  for  the  offences

punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468,

473, 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code,  1908  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "IPC")  was

3

registered wherein the  appellant,  respondent  No.3

and  three  bank  officials  were  named  as  accused

persons  in  relation  to  commission  of  the  alleged

crime.  

9) The aforesaid incident also led to filing of the

FIR No.5 of 2002 by the appellant (Chief Executive

Trustee) against respondent No.3 (Treasurer of the

Trust)  in  North  Police  Station,  Ernakulum  under

Sections 406, 409, 465, 467 and 471 of IPC. It was

inter alia alleged therein that respondent No.3 was

the person, who indulged into the fraud and forgery

and he managed to take away the money belonging

to the Trust by misusing his post. Pursuant to this

FIR, respondent No.3 (Treasurer of the Trust) was

arrested and later enlarged on bail.  

10) Thereafter,  the  police  made  investigation  in

relation  to  FIR  No.5  of  2002  and  submitted

charge-sheet No.166 of 2002 (Annexure- P-17).  

4

11) So far as Crime Case No.817 of 2001 arising

out  of  Complaint  Case  No.15877  of  2001  is

concerned, it was registered against the appellant,

respondent  No.3  and  three  Bank  officials  for

commission  of  the  offences  punishable  under

Section 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 473, 477 read with

Section 34 of IPC. The police made investigation in

this case and filed their final report on 06.02.2003

stating therein that no case was made out against

appellant and three bank officials (described in the

report as Accused Nos.2,  3,  4 and 5).  These four

accused  were,  therefore,  discharged  from  Crime

Case No.817 of 2001.  (Annexure-P-18).  

12) Respondent No. 2, i.e.,  the Trustee, however,

felt aggrieved by the final report dated 06.02.2003,

filed a protest petition (CC No. 28 of 2004) before

the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Ernakulum  and

prayed therein for taking cognizance of the offences

mentioned in the final  report.   The Chief  Judicial

5

Magistrate  issued  summons  to  the  appellant  and

respondent  No.3  to  appear  before  the  Court  on

22.07.2004.

13) Respondent  No.3  filed  a  Criminal  M.C.

No.2641 of  2007 before  the  High Court  of  Kerala

seeking to quash the final report filed in Crime Case

No.5 of 2002 pending in the Court of JMFC II at the

instance of the appellant against him.

14) In  his  application,  respondent  No.3,  in

substance,  contended that  he  cannot  be  made to

face two trials on the same set of facts and for the

same  offences  in  two  different  Courts.   He,

therefore,  prayed  that  so  far  as  Crime  Case

No.5/2002 filed by the appellant against him and

the  charge-sheet  filed  therein  are  concerned,  the

same are liable to be quashed.       

15) In  the  meantime,  two  Criminal  Misc.

Applications  under  Section  482 of  the  Code  were

6

filed  in  the  High  Court  of  Kerala  being  Criminal

M.C. No. 1732 of 2004 and Criminal M.C No. 2641

of 2007.

16) So  far  as  Criminal  M.C.  No.1732 of  2004 is

concerned,  it  was  filed  by  the  appellant  herein

wherein  he  sought  quashing  of  the  proceedings

pending against him in the Court of Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court II, Ernakulum (Crime Case

No.5 of 2002) in relation to Complaint Case No.2682

of 2002.  

17) So  far  as  Criminal  M.C.  No.2641 of  2007 is

concerned, it was filed by respondent No.3 against

the appellant challenging the FIR/charge-sheet filed

against him by the appellant (C.C. No.2682 of 2002)

in the Court of JMFC-II, Ernakulum.

18) By impugned  order,  the  Single  Judge  of  the

High  Court  dismissed  the  Criminal  M.C.

No.1732/2004,  which  was  filed  by  the  appellant,

and declined to quash the proceedings challenged

7

therein.  It was observed by the Single Judge, “it is

not possible to quash the complaint at this stage”.  

19) So far as the Criminal M.C. No.2641/2007 is

concerned, the Single Judge, by the same impugned

order, allowed the said Criminal M.C. and quashed

the FIR and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto.

20) The appellant, felt aggrieved by the dismissal

of his petition (Criminal M.C. No.1732/2004) by the

High  Court,  filed  two  SLPs  being  SLP(Crl.)

No.6319/2014 and the present SLP in this  Court

against  the  order  by  which  the  High  Court  had

quashed  the  FIR/charge-sheet  filed  against

respondent  No.3  and  had  allowed  Criminal  M.C.

Application 2641 of 2007.

21) This  Court,  on  06.03.2018,  dismissed  the

appellant's  SLP  No.6319/2014  as  having  become

infructuous  because  during  its  pendency,  the

appellant  and  other  three  bank  officials  were

8

discharged by the competent Court from the case.

The appellant, therefore, did not pursue the SLP.

22) With these background facts, the question for

consideration  in  this  appeal  is  as  to  whether  the

High Court (Single Judge) was justified in allowing

the  Criminal  M.C.  No.2641/2007  filed  by

respondent  No.3  and  thereby  was  justified  in

quashing  the  FIR/charge-sheet  filed  against

respondent No.3 and all consequential proceedings

arising out of the FIR/charge-sheet pending as C.C.

No.2682 of 2002 on the file of JMFC-II,  Ernakulum.

23) Heard  Mr.  Jayant  Bhushan,  learned  senior

counsel for the appellant, Ms. Liz Mathew, learned

counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2,

who appeared in person.

24) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant and respondent No.2, who appeared  in

person, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set

9

aside  the  impugned order  passed  in  Cri.  M.C.No.

2641 of 2007.

25) The  question,  which  fell  for  consideration

before the High Court, was that if two FIRs are filed

in relation to the same offence and against the same

accused, whether the subsequent FIR was liable to

be quashed or not.  

26) The  Single  Judge  placed  reliance  on  three

decisions  of  this  Court  reported  in  State  of

Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal, (1992) Supp(1) SCC

335,  Madhu  Limaye vs.  State  of  Maharashtra,

1977  (4)  SCC  551  and  R.P.  Kapur vs. State  of

Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and quashed the second

FIR/charge-sheet under Section 482 of the Code.  

27) In  our  view,  the  High  Court  had  committed

jurisdictional  error  in  quashing  the  subsequent

FIR/charge-sheet, which was filed at the instance of

the  appellant  against  respondent  No.3  without

adverting to the law on the subject.  

10

28) In our opinion, the law on the subject which

governs the controversy involved in the appeal is no

more res integra and  settled by the decision of this

Court (three-Judge Bench) in the case reported in

Upkar Singh vs.  Ved Prakash & Ors., (2004)  13

SCC 292 and also by the subsequent decisions.

29) Their  Lordships  after  examining  all  the

previous  case  laws  on  the  subject  laid  down the

following proposition of law in the following words

speaking through Justice N. Santosh Hegde:

“23. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this  Court  in  T.T.  Antony  case1  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 hereinbelow  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.

11

24.  We  have  already  noticed  that  in  T.T. Antony case1 this Court did not consider the legal  right  of  an  aggrieved  person  to  file counterclaim,  on  the  contrary  from  the observations  found in  the  said  judgment  it clearly  indicates  that  filing  a counter-complaint is permissible.

25. In the instant case, it is seen in regard to the incident which took place on 20-5-1995, the appellant and the first respondent herein have  lodged  separate  complaints  giving different versions but while the complaint of the respondent was registered by the police concerned,  the  complaint  of  the  appellant was  not  so  registered,  hence  on  his  prayer the  learned  Magistrate  was  justified  in directing the police concerned to register a case  and  investigate  the  same  and  report back.  In  our  opinion,  both  the  learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the same is hit by Section 161 or 162 of the Code which,  in  our  considered  opinion,  has absolutely  no  bearing  on  the  question involved.  Section  161  or  162  of  the  Code does  not  refer  to  registration  of  a  case,  it only speaks of a statement to be recorded by the police in the course of the investigation and its evidentiary value.”

30) The aforesaid principle was reiterated by this

Court (Two Judge Bench) in  Surender Kaushik &

Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 148 in

the following words:

“24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of  two FIRs is not  permissible  in  respect  of  one  and  the

12

same incident.  The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning.  It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the  same  or  connected  cognizable  offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the  same  accused  subsequent  to  the registration of the case under the Code, for an  investigation  in  that  regard  would  have already commenced and allowing registration of  further  complaint  would  amount  to  an improvement of  the facts mentioned in the original complaint.  As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh, the prohibition  does  not  cover  the  allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a  different  version  of  the  same  incident. Thus,  rival  versions in respect of  the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.”

31) Keeping the aforesaid principle of law in mind

when we examine the facts of the case at hand, we

find  that  the  second  FIR  filed  by  the  appellant

against respondent No.3 though related to the same

incident  for  which  the  first  FIR  was  filed  by

respondent No.2 against the appellant, respondent

No.3 and three Bank officials,  yet  the second FIR

being in the nature of a counter-complaint against

13

respondent No.3 was legally maintainable and could

be entertained for being tried on its merits.  

32) In other words, there is no prohibition in law

to file the second FIR and once it is filed, such FIR

is capable of being taken note of and tried on merits

in accordance with law.

33) It  is for the reasons that  firstly,  the second

FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed

the  first  FIR.   Had it  been so,  then the situation

would have been somewhat different.  Such was not

the case here; Second, it was filed by the appellant

as  a  counter-complaint  against  respondent  No.3;

Third, the first FIR was against five persons based

on one set  of  allegations  whereas the second FIR

was  based  on  the  allegations  different  from  the

allegations  made in the  first  FIR;  and Lastly,  the

High  Court  while  quashing  the  second

FIR/charge-sheet did not examine the issue arising

in  the  case  in  the  light  of  law laid  down by  this

14

Court in two aforementioned decisions of this Court

in the cases of  Upkar Singh (supra) and Surender

Kaushik (supra) and simply referred three decisions

of this Court mentioned above wherein this Court

has laid down general  principle of  law relating to

exercise  of  inherent  powers  under  Section 482 of

the Code.  

34) In the light of the foregoing discussion and the

four  reasons  mentioned  above,  we  are  unable  to

agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the

High Court and are, therefore, inclined to set aside

the impugned order.

35) The  Magistrate  will  now  proceed  to  try  and

decide the case on merits and while doing so, he will

be free to examine all the issues arising in the case

from all the angles in the light of the evidence that

will be adduced by the parties.  

36) If  the  Magistrate  finds  that  the  material

brought on record against any person(s) including

15

the appellant herein in the evidence indicating the

involvement of any such person(s) in commission of

the  alleged  offences,  he  will  be  free  to  proceed

against any such person(s) in accordance with law

and  bring  the  proceedings  to  its  logical  end

uninfluenced by any of our observations.

37) Let  the trial  before the concerned Magistrate

be over, as directed above, within a year as an outer

limit.

38) With  these  observations  and  directions,  the

appeal  succeeds  and  is  accordingly  allowed.

Impugned  order  passed  in  Criminal  M.C  No.

2641/2007 is set aside. As a result, C.C. No.2682 of

2002  on  the  file  of  the  JMFC-II,  Ernakulum  is

restored  to  its  file  for  being  tried  on  merits  in

accordance with law.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

16

                         …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; March 19, 2018  

17