9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the second complaint filed on the same facts and cause of action is maintainable. 2. Whether the dismissal of the first complaint as withdrawn amounts to acquittal under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Whether the non-payment of provident fund contributions constitutes a continuing offence allowing for multiple complaints. 4. Whether the summoning order is an interlocutory order and if the petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Second Complaint: The primary issue was whether a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action is maintainable after the first complaint was dismissed as withdrawn. The court observed that both the previous and current complaints were based on identical facts, amounts, and due dates. The petitioners argued that the second complaint is not maintainable as it is an abuse of the court's process, citing Section 300 CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which prevent double jeopardy. The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that once a complaint is dismissed as withdrawn, it should be considered as an acquittal under Section 257 CrPC, thus barring a second complaint on the same grounds. 2. Dismissal as Withdrawal Amounting to Acquittal: The court examined whether the dismissal of the first complaint as withdrawn amounted to an acquittal. Section 257 CrPC mandates that when a complaint is withdrawn, the accused must be acquitted. The court referred to previous judgments, including M.M.S. Bedi v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, which established that even if the order does not explicitly state acquittal, the legal effect should be considered as such. Therefore, the court concluded that the dismissal of the first complaint as withdrawn legally amounted to an acquittal, preventing further prosecution on the same facts. 3. Continuing Offence Argument: The respondent argued that non-payment of provident fund contributions is a continuing offence, allowing for fresh complaints. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P., which recognized non-payment as a continuing offence in the context of limitation. However, the court clarified that this principle does not justify multiple complaints on the same facts, as it would lead to harassment and abuse of the judicial process. The court emphasized that the legal consequence of a dismissed complaint as withdrawn is acquittal, which bars subsequent complaints on the same cause. 4. Summoning Order and Section 482 CrPC: The respondent contended that the summoning order is an interlocutory order, and thus, the petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable. The court, however, distinguished this case from others by emphasizing that the second complaint was legally barred, making its continuance an abuse of the court's process. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which allows the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Consequently, the court held that it was appropriate to quash the summoning order under Section 482 CrPC. Conclusion: The court concluded that the second complaint was not maintainable as it was based on the same facts and cause of action as the first complaint, which was dismissed as withdrawn, amounting to an acquittal. The argument of a continuing offence was rejected in this context, and the petition under Section 482 CrPC was deemed maintainable to prevent abuse of the court's process. Thus, all petitions were allowed, quashing the complaint and consequential proceedings, while leaving open the possibility for the respondent to pursue other legal avenues for recovery of dues.
|
