Summary
The Supreme Court restored proceedings arising from a counter-FIR about alleged diversion of charitable trust funds. The prohibition against a second FIR concerning the same incident does not exclude a counter-complaint presenting a rival version. The later FIR was filed by an accused in the first case, against another person, on different allegations. The High Court erred in quashing it without applying that distinction. The Magistrate was directed to decide the case on evidence within one year, with all merits open.
Issues
- Whether the later FIR was an impermissible duplicate or a maintainable counter-complaint.
- What proceedings should follow restoration of the counter-case.
Held
- The rule against successive FIRs on the same incident does not bar a counter-FIR presenting the rival version of the accused in the original case. Upkar Singh and Surender Kaushik distinguish such counter-complaints from later complaints that merely improve the original complainant’s allegations. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Here the later complainant was different, acted as an accused in the original case, and alleged a different account of responsibility for the trust fraud. His counter-complaint against the treasurer was legally maintainable despite the common incident. Reliance only on general section 482 authorities did not justify quashing it. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34)
- Restoration decided maintainability rather than guilt. The Magistrate could examine every issue on the evidence and proceed lawfully against any person whose involvement emerged, including the appellant. The trial was directed to conclude within one year as an outer limit. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38)
Result
Appeal allowed. Quashing order in Criminal M.C. 2641/2007 set aside; C.C. 2682/2002 restored for trial on merits, to conclude within one year.