RAVINDER SINGH v. SUKHBIR SINGH & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 107, 150, 169, 173, 403, 403(2), 482
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes F (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 323, 379, 427, 429, 447, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Constitution of India
Judgment
1.5 In the event that the appellant preferred an application for the purpose of quashing the FIR lodged by respondent no.1, and was unsuccessful therein, the same does not mean that the appellant had filed a false case against respondent No. 1. There is a difference C between the terms 'not proved' and 'false'. Merely · because a party is unable to prove a fact, the same cannot be categorized as false in each and every case. [Para 13) [260-A-B] D A. Abdul Rashid Khan (dead) & Ors. v. P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid & Ors., 2000) 10 sec 636 - relied on.
2.1 The principle of issue-estoppel is also known as 'cause of act!on estoppel' and the same is different from E the principle of double jeopardy or; autre fois acquit, as embodied in s. 403 Cr.P.C (1898). This principle applies where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion, and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused. If the cause of action was determined to exist, i.e., judgment was given on it, F the same is said to be merged in the judgment. If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam. [Para 18) [262-A-B-F-G] G
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.