Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1731 - SC - Indian LawsPrinciples 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.
|