1986 (3) TMI 269 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the respondent under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) amounted to an acquittal of the petitioner.
2. Whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to allow the filing of a fresh complaint on the same cause of action.
3. Whether non-compliance with Section 200 of the CrPC vitiates the trial.
4. Applicability of the rule of autrefois acquit under Section 300 of the CrPC.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of Complaint and Acquittal under Section 257 CrPC:
The petitioner contended that the withdrawal of the previous complaint under Section 257 CrPC should be treated as an acquittal, thus barring a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. Section 257 stipulates that a complaint may be withdrawn with the court's consent before a final order is passed, and upon such withdrawal, the accused shall be acquitted. The court observed that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the reasons for withdrawal and be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for permitting such withdrawal. In this case, the respondent-complainant sought withdrawal due to non-examination under Section 200 CrPC, which the Magistrate deemed a serious procedural defect. However, the court concluded that mere withdrawal without an explicit acquittal order does not amount to acquittal under Section 257 CrPC. Therefore, the withdrawal of the previous complaint did not equate to an acquittal of the petitioner.

2. Jurisdiction to Allow Filing of Fresh Complaint:
The petitioner argued that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to permit the filing of a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. The court agreed, stating that the CrPC does not empower a Magistrate to grant permission for filing a fresh complaint after withdrawal. The court cited precedents, including G. K. Mazumdar v. Mohmad Kasam Mirza and Kashi Prasad v. Emperor, which held that such orders are not contemplated by the CrPC and are invalid. Consequently, the Magistrate's order allowing the filing of a fresh complaint was beyond his jurisdiction and invalid.

3. Non-Compliance with Section 200 CrPC:
Section 200 mandates that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint must examine the complainant and witnesses present. The court emphasized that this is a mandatory provision, and non-compliance is a procedural lapse that does not necessarily vitiate the trial. The court referred to various judgments, including In re T. Subramania Achari and Mohammad Safi v. State of West Bengal, which held that non-compliance with mandatory provisions does not automatically render subsequent proceedings null and void. The court concluded that while the Magistrate's failure to comply with Section 200 was a serious irregularity, it did not vitiate the entire trial.

4. Applicability of Rule of Autrefois Acquit under Section 300 CrPC:
The petitioner invoked the rule of autrefois acquit under Section 300 CrPC, arguing that the withdrawal of the previous complaint amounted to a deemed acquittal, thus barring subsequent prosecution. The court outlined the three essential conditions for the rule of autrefois acquit: (1) a trial of the accused, (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) a judgment or order of acquittal. The court noted that the petitioner had not been tried for the offence, and the previous complaint's withdrawal did not satisfy the conditions for autrefois acquit. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammad Safi v. State of West Bengal, which held that an order of acquittal by a court that erroneously believes it lacks jurisdiction does not bar subsequent prosecution. Thus, the court concluded that the rule of autrefois acquit did not apply in this case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the withdrawal of the previous complaint did not amount to an acquittal under Section 257 CrPC, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to allow the filing of a fresh complaint, non-compliance with Section 200 CrPC did not vitiate the trial, and the rule of autrefois acquit under Section 300 CrPC did not bar subsequent prosecution. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.

← Previous Next →