Allahabad High Court
PRANAV KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJIV KUMAR
Holding
The doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply; the magistrate must stay the complaint proceedings and try both the complaint and the FIR case together as mandated by Section 210 CrPC (Section 233 BNSS).
Summary
The revisionists filed a criminal revision under Sections 438/442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging a trial court order that summoned them in a complaint case for offences under Sections 323, 406 and 504 IPC. They argued that the summons violated Article 21(2) of the Constitution by subjecting them to double jeopardy, since an FIR on the same facts had already led to a pending criminal case. The State contended that the complaint was distinct because the FIR omitted certain facts, and therefore the proceedings were not barred. The High Court examined Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (and its counterpart Section 233 BNSS), which mandates that when a complaint and a police investigation relate to the same offence, the magistrate must stay the complaint proceedings and try both matters together. The Court held that the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply because the earlier case is still pending, and the proper procedure is to try both cases concurrently as per Section 210(2). Consequently, the revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with Section 210(2) CrPC (Section 238 BNSS).
Issues considered
- Whether the summoning of the accused in a complaint case, when an FIR on the same facts is already pending, violates the principle of double jeopardy under Article 21(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the trial court should stay the complaint proceedings and try the complaint and the FIR case together under Section 210 CrPC (Section 233 BNSS).
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 233, 238, 438, 442
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 200, 202, 210
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 504
Subjects
- double jeopardy
- criminal revision
- complaint case
- FIR
- Section 210 CrPC
- BNSS
- stay of proceedings
- concurrent trial
Judgment
Reserved
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3364 of 2025
Pranav Kumar And 2 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Braj Mohan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditya Kumar Verma, G.A., Krishna
Kanhaiya Soni, Rajesh Yadav
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Braj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Krishna Kanhaiya Soni,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/442 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the revisionist
s against impugned summoning order dated 19.05.2025, passed by Civil
Judge (Jr. Div.) FTC/J.M., Court No.2, District Bijnor, in Complaint Case
No. 13482 of 2024, whereby the Trial Court has summoned the
revisionists under Sections 323, 406, 504 IPC upon complaint case.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the impugned order is
not sustainable in the eye of law, as on the same facts, opposite party
no.2/complainant had lodged an FIR, in which, after investigation,
charge-sheet was filed and the revisionists are facing trial before the
competent court, therefore, on the same facts summoning of the
revisionists/accused in the present compliant is against Article 21(2) of
the Constitution of India, so it is hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy.
4. Per contra, learned AGA on behalf of the State and learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 have opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that
there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is submitted
that opposite party no.2/complainant failed to mention certain facts in the
CRLR No. 3364 of 2025
2
FIR, therefore, the complaint was filed and thus, the proceedings, on the
basis of compliant, is not barred, as such, this revision has no force and is
liable to be dismissed.
5. In view of submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and upon
a perusal of record, the admitted position is that opposite party
no.2/complainant had lodged an FIR on the same facts, against the
revisionists, and in that case, after investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed and the case is pending before the competent court. On the same
facts, opposite party no.2/complainant has filed the present complaint, in
which, after recording of evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the
revisionists have been summoned to face trial. A copy of the complaint
and the FIR is filed along with this revision, a perusal of which shows that
the contents of the FIR as well as the complaint are almost similar and as
the revisionists were already summoned in the case lodged upon Police
report, and subsequently, on the same facts complaint was filed and the
revisionists have been summoned, therefore, Section 210 Cr.P.C.
(corresponding Section 233 BNSS) comes into picture, which provides as
under:
“Section 210 – Procedure to be followed when there is a
complaint case and police investigation in respect of the
same offence
(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report
(hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to
appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or
trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in
progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter
of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay
the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report
on the matter from the police officer conducting the
investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under
section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is
taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused
in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try
together the complaint case and the case arising out of the
police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police
CRLR No. 3364 of 2025
3
report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the
complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance
of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the
inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with
the provisions of this Code.”
6. In view of the above provision, the Magistrate was required to try both
cases together, as if both the cases are instituted on a police report as
provided under Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C. As the earlier case is pending and
not decided and the revisionists are not tried and punished for the same
offence, earlier, so the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply to the
present case and the submission on behalf of revisionists in this regard has
no force.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that though there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order in summoning the revisionist
in the aforesaid complaint, as it was not brought to notice of the court
concerned that upon the similar facts, an FIR was lodged and upon police
report, a criminal case is pending. But in view of the above, the next
course to be adopted, by the court concerned, is to proceed in accordance
with Section 210 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 233 BNSS) to try both
the cases together, as if both the cases are instituted on the police report.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this revision is, accordingly,
dismissed, however, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter
further, in view of the observations made above, in accordance with
Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 238 of the BNSS).
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
September 9, 2026
Subham
Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…