Splitting Single Cause Of Action Into Multiple Criminal Cases Legally Impermissible: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the facts of the same occurrence cannot be allowed to be broken into pieces so as to file multiple complaints, and that all offences arising out of the same occurrence are to be investigated and tried together as per the scheme of criminal law.Quashing an FIR registered at Police Station, Budgam, along with the order of the Special Mobile Magistrate directing its registration, the Court observed that the respondent had concealed the fact of a prior summoning order from the Srinagar Court while approaching the Budgam Magistrate, which amounted to a fraud on the court and a gross abuse of the judicial process.The Court was hearing a petition filed by Vishvendra Singh, a resident of Delhi, challenging the order passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing registration of FIR, and seeking quashing of the consequent FIR registered under Sections 469 and 505(2) IPC. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had instituted three parallel criminal proceedings against him across Srinagar, Budgam and New Delhi based on the exact same set of allegations regarding a singular Twitter trend.A Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while allowing the petition, observed, “.. The facts of the same occurrence cannot be allowed to be broken into pieces so as to file multiple complaints. All the offences, arising out of the same occurrence are to be investigated and tried together is the scheme of criminal law.” The Court held that the complainant could have asked for proceeding for the commission of all the offences in its first complaint at Srinagar, and that splitting of different offences arising out of the same set of facts before different forums is precluded.The petitioner, a resident of Delhi, claimed to be a whistleblower exposing a massive real estate fraud. He alleged that respondent No. 2, a company belonging to the WTC Group, had resorted to a multi-pronged legal attack against him for exposing the scam. Vide email dated 6th September 2021, the respondent placed a brochure on the petitioner's email and thereafter instituted Complaint under Section 200 CrPC at Srinagar, obtaining a summoning order from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar against the petitioner.Thereafter, the respondent approached the Budgam Magistrate, who passed the impugned order directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to registration of FIR under Sections 469 and 505(2) IPC. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent used the same facts to file a third criminal proceeding in New Delhi under Section 156(3) CrPC at Saket Court, New Delhi. The respondent, in its objections, contended that the protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution was not attracted because the two proceedings in J&K arose under distinct statutory provisions, one under Sections 499 and 500 IPC (Defamation) and the other under Sections 469 and 505 IPC (Forgery and Public Mischief) which are separate and independent offences.Court's ObservationThe Court noted a deeply concerning pattern of non-disclosure by respondent No. 2. The Court observed that the respondent had successfully obtained a summoning order from the Court of the CJM, Srinagar on 7th October 2021, yet merely five days later approached the Court at Budgam seeking registration of an FIR on the exact same set of facts and allegations. “.. At no point was the Budgam Magistrate informed that a competent court in a neighboring district had already taken cognizance of the matter. This deliberate concealment of prior proceedings suggests an attempt to obtain conflicting or cumulative judicial orders by keeping different courts in the dark. Such conduct amounts to a fraud on the court and a gross abuse of the judicial process,” the Court held.The Court further observed that both the petitioner and the key officials of the respondent-company were residents of New Delhi, yet the respondent had chosen to trigger criminal machinery in Srinagar, Budgam, and Saket (New Delhi) simultaneously. “.. This 'multi-jurisdictional' litigation strategy over a singular alleged act is clearly designed to overawe the petitioner. By forcing the petitioner to defend himself in multiple far-flung forums, the respondent is using the law not as a shield for justice, but as a sword for harassment,” the Court stated.Upon a comparative analysis of the complaint filed in Srinagar and the FIR registered in Budgam, the Court found that the allegations were not just similar or identical, they were virtually the same. The Court held that the substratum of the case remained the alleged social media activity. “... The respondent's attempt to justify the Budgam FIR by merely adding different sections of the IPC while the Srinagar complaint covers Sections 499 and 500 is a transparent attempt to bypass the rule against multiple trials for the same incident. Splitting a single...

Splitting Single Cause Of Action Into Multiple Criminal Cases Legally Impermissible: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Splitting Single Cause Of Action Into Multiple Criminal Cases Legally Impermissible: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers