Limitation, continuing offence, and abuse of process barred a later criminal complaint in a civil-arbitral payment dispute.

An alleged wrongful withholding of payment and articles was held not to be a continuing offence, so limitation ran from the date the breach was complete and the complaint was time-barred. A second criminal complaint on the same facts was found impermissible because earlier complaints had already been decided on merits, the related claim had been rejected in arbitration, and the later filing was treated as abuse of process in a civil-arbitral dispute. The summons were also unsustainable because process had been issued without the mandatory inquiry required under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an accused residing outside jurisdiction, and the proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint was barred by limitation and whether the alleged non-payment constituted a continuing offence; (ii) Whether a subsequent criminal complaint on the same subject matter was maintainable in view of earlier complaints decided on merits and the surrounding civil and arbitral proceedings; (iii) Whether the criminal process could be sustained when summons had been issued without due compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint was barred by limitation and whether the alleged non-payment constituted a continuing offence;

Analysis: The limitation scheme under Sections 468, 469 and 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was applied on the footing that limitation begins from the date of the offence in an instantaneous case, while a continuing offence renews limitation during the continuance of the wrongful act. The Court held that the alleged wrongful withholding of payment and articles did not amount to a continuing offence, because the alleged breach, if any, was complete when the claim was rejected and communicated, even though the financial effect may have persisted. Repeated representations after rejection could not extend limitation.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation and the alleged offence was not a continuing offence.

Issue (ii): Whether a subsequent criminal complaint on the same subject matter was maintainable in view of earlier complaints decided on merits and the surrounding civil and arbitral proceedings;

Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that a second complaint on the same facts is maintainable only in exceptional situations, such as dismissal of the earlier complaint for insufficient material or without proper consideration, and not where the earlier complaint was decided on merits. It noted that earlier complaints arising from the same controversy had been dismissed after examination of witnesses, that the arbitral proceedings had already rejected the related claim, and that the present complaint had suppressed those material facts. The criminal process was treated as a means of pressure in a dispute essentially bearing a civil/arbitral character.

Conclusion: The subsequent complaint was not maintainable and amounted to an abuse of process.

Issue (iii): Whether the criminal process could be sustained when summons had been issued without due compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

Analysis: The Court referred to the mandatory nature of the post-amendment requirement to postpone process and conduct inquiry or direct investigation where the accused resides outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. It found that summons had been issued without meeting that statutory safeguard.

Conclusion: The issuance of summons was procedurally infirm and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The complaint proceedings were quashed because the prosecution was time-barred, the later complaint on the same facts was not maintainable, and the criminal process was abused to press a dispute already litigated in civil and arbitral forums.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint based on an instantaneous wrongful act does not become a continuing offence merely because its consequences persist, and a second criminal complaint on the same facts is impermissible when the earlier complaint was dismissed on merits after due consideration.

---