2020 (2) TMI 1511 - SC - Indian Laws

Court sets aside orders rejecting discharge application & FIR, finds subsequent prosecution unsustainable. Highlight on abuse of process & previous acquittal importance.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders rejecting the discharge application and subsequent FIR. It found the subsequent prosecution ... Forgery of power of attorney - acquittal of accused - substratum of the two FIRs, same or not - HELD THAT:- FIR alleges that the Respondent on account of his job invariably stayed outside. The Appellant had created a forged general power of attorney from the Respondent in his name with regard to his lands bearing Gata No. 77/0.87 decimal and sold it on the basis of the forged general power of attorney which the Respondent became aware of on 25.07.1989. The Respondent denied having ever executed any general power of attorney in favour of the Appellant. The Respondent does not dispute that the Appellant was acquitted of the charge by judgment dated 07.08.1998. The fact that the judgment may not have been made available is therefore inconsequential - The institution of Civil Suit No. 353 of 2007 by the Respondent for cancellation of the general power of attorney, after the acquittal of the Appellant, is nothing but an acknowledgment of the genuineness of the general power of attorney executed by the Respondents which he now wished to revoke. The Respondent then filed an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police leading to registration of FIR dated 09.10.2008. The allegations are similar that the Appellant put up an imposter in place of the Respondent and along with one Sushil Kumar Singh and Arvind on the basis of a general power of attorney, which the Respondent had never executed, sold his lands - It is, therefore, apparent that the subject matter of both the FIRs is the same general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 and the sales made by the Appellant in pursuance of the same. If the substratum of the two FIRs are common, the mere addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 in the subsequent FIR cannot be considered as different ingredients to justify the latter FIR as being based on different materials, allegations and grounds. The substratum of the two FIRs are the same and that the Appellant has already stood acquitted on 07.08.1998 of the charge with regard to forging any general power of attorney of the Respondent, the subsequent prosecution of the Appellant in FIR No. 114 of 2008 dated 09.10.2008 is completely unsustainable - Appeal allowed. 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.