Multiplicity of criminal complaints on the same transaction found abusive, leading to quashing of the later prosecution.

A subsequent criminal complaint based on the same transaction as earlier pending complaints was treated as an abuse of process because it substantially overlapped on the foundational facts and failed to disclose the earlier proceedings. The later complaint merely added further penal provisions without any material distinction in the underlying transaction. Applying the rule against multiplicity of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts, the court held that the third complaint and consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed as an impermissible duplicated prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the third complaint, based on the same factual matrix as the earlier two complaints and omitting reference to those pending complaints, was liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of court.

Analysis: The three complaints were found to arise from the same transaction concerning the investment in non-convertible debentures and the dishonour of cheques. The earlier complaints and the third complaint substantially overlapped on the foundational facts, and the later complaint merely added further penal provisions without disclosing the pendency of the earlier proceedings. On that basis, the filing and prosecution of the third complaint was held to be impermissible, and the principles against multiplicity of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts were applied.

Conclusion: The third complaint and all consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded because the impugned criminal proceeding was held unsustainable as a duplicated prosecution arising out of the same transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent criminal complaint founded on the same set of facts as earlier pending complaints, without any material distinction in the underlying transaction, constitutes an abuse of the process of court and may be quashed to prevent impermissible multiplicity of proceedings.

---