2018 (1) TMI 1731 - SC - Indian Laws

Principles of res-judicata - Refusal to take cognizance of the complaint - complaint filed under the provisions of Section 354 read with Section 475A(1)(a) of the MMC Act - HELD THAT - The High Court ultimately dismissed the case on the jurisdictional issue by observing that by no stretch of imagination, the dismissal of the criminal complaint for filing delay may be construed as acquittal so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 378 of CrPC, and ultimately held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain such matter. It can be observed that the High Court at this juncture, recognised the incorrect invocation of the criminal appellate jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision and granted further liberty to move appropriate court if so advised. There is no dispute that the rule of res judicata in common law, to recent precedents of this Court, has been accepted as a universal rule of law emanating from the public policy1 to limit excessive and unnecessary litigation. It may not be an overstatement to state that the principle of res judicata is as old as the law itself. The extent of application of res judicata in a country, on a comparative analysis of foreign jurisprudence, depends on various considerations such as efficiency, fairness, and substantive policies, but across the board a minimal core seems to be well preserved. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that the High Court stretched the ambit of finality for some observations to the saying (relating to collateral aspects) that every such observation was final unless reversed in appeal, which had an effect of throttling the substantive justice out of life - such reasoning of the High Court that the issue had attained finality, cannot be approved, since the observations were made by a court which went against its own findings that the court did not have any authority/jurisdiction to do so. Once the court concludes that a case is not maintainable under Section 378 of CrPC, it did not have any jurisdiction to make further observations on merits as has been done in this case. The High Court was not correct in dismissing the case on the threshold without holding a full-fledged enquiry into the issues raised thereunder - the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay condonation and leave granted for appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3166 of 2012.
2. Interpretation of liberty granted by earlier orders for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Jurisdictional errors by the High Court in dismissing the writ petition without examining the merits of the case and misapplication of the principle of res judicata.
4. Analysis of the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the impugned order and restore the Criminal Writ Petition for further hearing.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court granted delay condonation and leave for appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3166 of 2012. The appellant-Corporation filed a complaint under Section 354 read with Section 475A(1)(a) of the MMC Act against the respondents for not carrying out structural repairs as directed, leading to the Metropolitan Magistrate's refusal to take cognizance due to a delay issue. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court for further review.

2. The interpretation of the liberty granted by earlier orders for filing a writ petition under Article 226 was a crucial issue. The appellant argued that the High Court misinterpreted the liberty granted by dismissing the writ petition without examining its merits. The appellant contended that once liberty was granted, the High Court should have considered the case on its merits instead of dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.

3. The Supreme Court found jurisdictional errors by the High Court in dismissing the writ petition without a thorough examination of the case and misapplying the principle of res judicata. The High Court's dismissal was based on the belief that the earlier decision had attained finality, possibly due to the principle of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court's observations were not binding as they were made without jurisdiction.

4. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was analyzed, and the Supreme Court decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the Criminal Writ Petition for further hearing. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's observations did not have a preclusive effect or finality, especially since they exceeded the jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court instructed the High Court to conduct a full-fledged inquiry into the case and dispose of it on its merits promptly, without expressing any opinion on the case's substance.