TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overrules High Court, restores Magistrate's order. Respondent to appear before Magistrate.</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order. The respondent was directed to appear before ... Whether the Protest Petition can always be treated as a complaint and proceeded with in terms of Chapter XV of Cr.P.C? Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the second Protest Petition.2. Legality of filing two FIRs for the same incident.3. Evaluation of the Magistrate's order based on evidence.4. High Court's remarks on the Magistrate's conduct.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the second Protest Petition:The appellant argued that the first Protest Petition, filed before the Final Report, was not maintainable and should be ignored. The second Protest Petition, filed after the Final Report, was the only one that could be entertained. The High Court erred in quashing the cognizance taken by the Magistrate based on the second Protest Petition. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including *Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.*, *Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh*, and others, establishing that a second complaint or Protest Petition is permissible under exceptional circumstances, such as when the first was based on incomplete records or new facts emerged. The Court concluded that the second Protest Petition was maintainable as it was filed with full details after the Final Report.2. Legality of filing two FIRs for the same incident:The respondents contended that two FIRs for the same incident were not permissible. However, the Supreme Court clarified that law permits registration and investigation of two FIRs if they present different versions of the same incident. The Court referenced cases like *Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)* and *Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors.*, affirming that filing another FIR with a different version of events is permissible. Thus, the second FIR filed by Kameshwar Singh was legally valid.3. Evaluation of the Magistrate's order based on evidence:The Magistrate took cognizance based on extensive evidence, including depositions from multiple witnesses and records from the Sessions Trial. The Supreme Court noted that the Magistrate had thoroughly examined the evidence before issuing summons under Section 395 IPC. The High Court, however, set aside this order on technical grounds without considering the substantial evidence. The Supreme Court restored the Magistrate's order, emphasizing that the High Court overlooked the detailed evaluation conducted by the Magistrate.4. High Court's remarks on the Magistrate's conduct:The High Court criticized the Magistrate for allegedly leaving the order vague regarding which Protest Petition was acted upon, implying unfair conduct. The Supreme Court found these remarks unjustified and unwarranted, stating there was no basis for such sweeping comments against the Magistrate. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court's remarks were made without considering the full context and evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order. The respondent was directed to appear before the Magistrate, who was requested to proceed in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were solely for resolving the present controversy and should not prejudice the respondent's right to seek further legal relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
