FIR hit by Double Jeopardy – Andheri Magistrate Court quashes FIR registered against Mumbai Family – Advocate Aditya Pratap represented Discharge Applicants before Court:

The Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court at Andheri Mumbai discharged four members of an Andheri Family who were embroiled in a 31-years long dispute over 450 shares of Bharat Forge Limited. Advocate Aditya Pratap, Advocate and Founder of Aditya Pratap Law Offices, represented the family members and argued their discharge application before the Magistrate Court.

Appearing before the Ld. Magistrate Shri AI Shaikh, Advocate Aditya Pratap placed the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Court. Advocate Pratap submitted that the facts of the case dated back to the year 1991 when an FIR was registered against his clients in a dispute involving 450 shares of Bharat Forge Limited. He added that in the said case, a compromise was reached between the parties and the matter was compounded in the year 2000, with the acquittal of his clients.

Advocate Aditya Pratap further added that the compromise reached between the parties in the year 2000 was enshrined in the form of consent terms. According to these consent terms, signed share transfer forms were handed over by Aditya Pratap’s clients to the complainant, who was then to submit them to Bharat Forge Limited and get the transfer registered in his name.

However, in a shocking twist of events, the First Informant/Complainant never bothered to submit the signed share transfer forms to Bharat Forge. He slept over his rights for fifteen (15) years while Aditya Pratap’s clients went about their daily lives. 

Continuing his arguments, Adv Aditya Pratap further added that when the First Informant suddenly woke up in 2015, instead of filing an execution application seeking enforcement of the consent terms, the First Informant/Complainant directly chose to approach the Amboli Police Station and get a second FIR instituted against his clients on the same cause of action. The First Informant chose to misuse the Police as a money recovery tool as part of his malicious agenda to wreak vengeance against the clients of Aditya Pratap.

Advocate Aditya Pratap further argued that since his clients had already been implicated in an earlier FIR which was compounded in the year 2000, a second FIR was absolutely non-maintainable. Advocate Pratap further submitted that since the compounding in the year 2000 had resulted in the acquittal of his clients, the second FIR registered in the year 2015 violated the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy enshrined under Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.

Passing its final order, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court at Andheri was pleased to discharge the accused by exercising his powers under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accepting the submissions of Advocate Aditya Pratap, the Court observed: “From perused the entire charge sheet it reveals that the charge against the accused persons are groundless on the reason that already on the same facts the accused face the criminal prosecution and they are acquitted. Moreover, the principle of double jeopardy is well attracted to the present case’.

Thus ended the Andheri family’s 31 year ordeal and struggle for justice. Pained at the wanton manner in which criminal law is misused, Advocate Aditya Pratap says, “Ensuring strict accountability on the part of the Police is the need of the hour. The Police need to exercise greater diligence prior to registering FIRs. Senior Officers of Police must ensure that Police Stations refrain from registering FIRs in matters which have already attained the stage of res judicata. In such cases, the appropriate remedy is to once again approach the court which decided the dispute rather than maliciously filing a second FIR on the same facts.”