TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Court sets aside orders rejecting discharge application & FIR, finds subsequent prosecution unsustainable. Highlight on abuse of process & previous acquittal importance.</h1> <h3>Prem Chand Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.</h3> Prem Chand Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. - (2020) 3 SCC 54 Issues:Challenge to order rejecting discharge application based on previous acquittal and subsequent FIR, abuse of process of law, interpretation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Detailed Analysis:The Appellant challenged the order rejecting his discharge application and subsequent FIR. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant forged a general power of attorney to sell lands illegally. The Appellant was acquitted in a previous trial related to the same charge. The Respondent then filed a civil suit to cancel the power of attorney and later filed a new FIR in 2008. The Appellant argued that the subsequent FIR was an abuse of process of law, concealing the earlier acquittal. The Respondent contended that the ingredients of the two FIRs were different, justifying the rejection of the discharge application.The FIR from 1989 alleged the Appellant forged the power of attorney and sold the lands. The Respondent denied executing any such document. The Appellant's acquittal in 1998 was not disputed. The Respondent's civil suit to cancel the power of attorney after the acquittal indicated an acknowledgment of its genuineness. The subsequent FIR in 2008 made similar allegations but concealed the earlier acquittal and civil suit, focusing on new sections of the law.The Court analyzed Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits trying a person again for the same offense once acquitted. As the substratum of both FIRs was the same power of attorney and sales by the Appellant, the Court found the subsequent prosecution unsustainable. The Court set aside the orders rejecting the discharge application and subsequent FIR, allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of abuse of process of law, the significance of previous acquittal in subsequent proceedings, and the interpretation of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found the subsequent prosecution based on the same facts as the earlier acquitted offense unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of relevant orders and allowing the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
