2004 (9) TMI 689 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of registering a second FIR for the same incident - Right of an aggrieved person to file a counter-complaint - Correctness of the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors . 2001 (7) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - We have noticed that in the T.T. Antony s case this Court did not consider the legal right of an aggrieved person to file counter claim on the contrary from the observations found in the said judgment it clearly indicates that filing a counter complaint is permissible. In the instant case it is seen in regard to the incident which took place on 20th May 1995 the appellant and the 1st respondent herein have lodged separate complaints giving different versions but while the complaint of respondent was registered by the concerned police the complaint of the appellant was not so registered hence on his prayer the learned Magistrate was justified in directing the police concerned to register a case and investigate the same and report back. In our opinion both the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the same is hit by Section 161 or 162 of the Code which in our considered opinion has absolutely no bearing on the question involved. Section 161 or 162 of the Code does not refer to registration of a case it only speaks of a statement to he recorded by the police in the course of the investigation and its evidentiary value. Thus this appeal succeeds and the impugned orders of the High Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside and that of the Magistrate restored.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.
2. Legality of registering a second FIR for the same incident.
3. Right of an aggrieved person to file a counter-complaint.

Summary:

1. Correctness of the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.
This Court, while granting leave in this appeal, doubted the correctness of the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. and referred the case to a larger Bench for final disposal and to consider the correctness of the law laid down in T.T. Antony.

2. Legality of registering a second FIR for the same incident.
The appellant lodged a complaint regarding the same incident against the respondents for offences u/s 506 and 307 IPC, but the police did not entertain it. The appellant then approached the Judicial Magistrate, who directed the police to register a crime and investigate. The Sessions Judge and the High Court set aside the Magistrate's order, citing that two FIRs for the same incident are not permissible as per Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, this Court clarified that the judgment in T.T. Antony did not preclude the filing of a counter-case. The Court emphasized that a second FIR by the same complainant or others against the same accused is prohibited, but a counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint is permissible.

3. Right of an aggrieved person to file a counter-complaint.
The Court noted that if the police refuse to register a counter-complaint, the Magistrate can direct the police to register and investigate the complaint. The Court cited Kari Choudhary v. Mst Site Devi and Ors., which held that rival versions of the same episode can take the shape of two different FIRs. The Court also referred to State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna and Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), which support the permissibility of counter-complaints.

The Court concluded that the appellant's complaint should have been registered and investigated, and the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Judge were set aside, restoring the Magistrate's order. The Court emphasized that prohibiting counter-complaints would lead to serious consequences, depriving victims of their legitimate right to bring the real accused to book.