Samta Naidu and anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. - Synopsis
Nilanjana Ganguly 6 Mar 2020

The appellant's father-in-law owned a Maruti 800 vehicle and died on 12 December 2001, leaving his widow, three sons and a daughter behind.

The appellants brother-in-law (complainant) lodged a complaint against the appellant and her husband pursuant to sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, alleging that the forged signatures of his father had been used on affidavit and that the Maruti 800 had been sold.

Vide order dated 05.07.2013, when the case came up before the First Class Judicial Magistrate.

Jabalpur court dismissed on the basis that no prima facie case was brought against the appellant and her husband.

The complainant filed Revision before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

However, it later submitted that he wished to withdraw the revision with the liberty of filing a new petition on the basis of some new facts.

The Revisional Court noted that no authorisation was needed to do so, as a new complaint could be filed at any time on the basis of new facts.

Subsequently, the plaintiff lodged a complaint on the same claim but relied on additional material to support his case and submitted that it had been accepted under Sections 201, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Criminal Code, 1860.

The Judiciary Magistrate of First Class Jabalpur took cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 420 IPC but rejected the complaint by preferring the Statutory Revision, which had been approved, and ordered the Magistrate to reconsider the documents available on record and to issue an effective order for recognition of the relevant offences. This was challenged by the appellants before the High Court.

 In the light of this, the First Class Judiciary took note of all the crimes charged in the petition and the charges were brought against the appellant.

Subsequently, the appellants have questioned the order for framing put before the High Court.

According to the High Court –

The High Court admitted both the criminal revisions and, on the issue of the admissibility of the second complaint, declined to intervene in the same and rejected the revision petitions, instructing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 45.000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) in the Court Registry within two weeks.

However, these recommendations were not reasonable to the Claimant and the case was therefore well heard by the High Court. The High Court rejected the pleas for review, which held that the second complaint was to be preserved. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

According to the Supreme Court –

While allowing appeals and setting aside the ruling of the High Court, the Supreme Court said that a second complaint, based on the same evidences as the first, could not be upheld.

 

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.