Supreme Court Restores Magistrate's Order, Permits Counter-Complaints by Accused in Ongoing Cases.

The SC set aside the orders of the HC and the Sessions Judge, restoring the Magistrate's directive to register and investigate the appellant's complaint. The SC clarified that while a second FIR by the same complainant or others against the same accused is prohibited, a counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint is permissible, emphasizing the right of aggrieved parties to file such complaints. The Court underscored that prohibiting counter-complaints could deprive victims of their legitimate rights, thereby allowing the appellant's complaint to proceed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.
2. Legality of registering a second FIR for the same incident.
3. Right of an aggrieved person to file a counter-complaint.

Summary:

1. Correctness of the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.
This Court, while granting leave in this appeal, doubted the correctness of the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. and referred the case to a larger Bench for final disposal and to consider the correctness of the law laid down in T.T. Antony.

2. Legality of registering a second FIR for the same incident.
The appellant lodged a complaint regarding the same incident against the respondents for offences u/s 506 and 307 IPC, but the police did not entertain it. The appellant then approached the Judicial Magistrate, who directed the police to register a crime and investigate. The Sessions Judge and the High Court set aside the Magistrate's order, citing that two FIRs for the same incident are not permissible as per Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, this Court clarified that the judgment in T.T. Antony did not preclude the filing of a counter-case. The Court emphasized that a second FIR by the same complainant or others against the same accused is prohibited, but a counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint is permissible.

3. Right of an aggrieved person to file a counter-complaint.
The Court noted that if the police refuse to register a counter-complaint, the Magistrate can direct the police to register and investigate the complaint. The Court cited Kari Choudhary v. Mst Site Devi and Ors., which held that rival versions of the same episode can take the shape of two different FIRs. The Court also referred to State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna and Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), which support the permissibility of counter-complaints.

The Court concluded that the appellant's complaint should have been registered and investigated, and the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Judge were set aside, restoring the Magistrate's order. The Court emphasized that prohibiting counter-complaints would lead to serious consequences, depriving victims of their legitimate right to bring the real accused to book.

---