SHIVANSHI GUPTA

ASSIGNEMENT -2

A) Mr. 'X' was named in F.I.R. under Section 302, 307, 427, 435, 148, 149 of IPC and 25
and 27 of Arms Act, and a charge sheet was filed by the police in which Mr. 'X' was
declared innocent. Later, a private complaint was filed against Mr.'X' by Complainant
No.1 and another private complaint was filed by Complainant No.2 (who was minor at
the time of incident but after attaining majority files a private complaint against Mr.
'X')

1. CAN MULTIPLE PRIVATE COMPLAINTS BE FILED AGAINST MR. 'X',

WHO IS NAMED IN F.I.R. BUT PROVED INNOCENT IN A CHARGESHEET?
SUPPORT WITH CASE LAWS.

In a landmark judgment entitled Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) has served to

clarify the entire legal position pursuant to Section 319 of the CrPC, on 14 December 2018
the two Judge Bench of Apex Court comprising Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar and
Justice NV Raman upheld a trial court order filed under section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure summoning some accused persons who were in the proceedings Person once
discharged may also be added on the basis of new materials as accused u / s 319 CrPC.
Under Section 200 CrPC, the Informant may file a private complaint to magistrate. Where, in
the course of any investigation or trial of an offense, it appears from the evidence that any
person not being the accused has committed any offense for which that person could be tried
along with the accused, the Court may proceed against that person for the offense which it
appears to have committed.

2. IF IN THE CASE IT IS LAWFUL TO FILE MULTIPLE

PRIVATE COMPLAINTS, THEN UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS OF CR.P.C.
OR ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. SUPPORT WITH
CASE LAWS.

As per Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate who takes cognizance
of a complaint for an offense shall, on oath, examine the complainant and the witnesses
present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and signed
by the complainant and the witnesses, as well as by the Magistrate: provided that, when the
complaint is lodged in writing, the Magistrate doesn't need to examine the complainant or the
witness. Where the Court proceeds against any person accordance with the provisions to sub-
section (1), then the proceedings shall begin a fresh one and the witnesses shall be re-heard.
According to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if that person were an
accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offense on which the investigation or
trial began.

3. DISCUSS LANDMARK JUDGMENTS OF SECTION 319 OF CR.P.C, WHERE

THE POWER TO PROCEED AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON APPEARING TO
BE GUILTY OF OFFENCE IS DISCUSSED.

It is important to keep in mind the following observations of the judgment rendered by a

Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, which
stated that, The court should consider the fact that the witness when giving evidence against
the person so discharged, is not doing so merely to take vengeance or is naming him at the
behest of someone or for such other unnecessary concerns. The court has to be cautious in
handling these facts and try to separate the chaff from the grain. If the court is of the opinion
after such thorough examination of the evidence that there is evidence to proceed against the
person so discharged, it may take steps, but only in accordance with Section 398 Cr. P.C
without requiring access to section 319 Cr. P.C. directly. The obvious inference that can be
drawn is that an individual who has been discharged may now be admitted as accused under
Section 319 of the Criminal Code on the basis of new evidences.

4. FIND OUT LANDMARK JUDGMENTS WHERE THE SCOPE OF CHAPTER

15 SECTION 200-224 OF Cr.P.C IS DISCUSSED.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court  in the case of Ajoy kumar ghose v State of Jharkhand & Anr
held that  Under Section 245(1), the Judge has the benefit of the evidence presented before
him by the prosecution under Section 244, and would decide if, whether the evidence remains
unrebutted, the conviction of accused will be justified. If the evidence contains no
discernible incriminating information, then the Magistrate shall discharge the accused
according to Section 245(1) Cr. P.C. Once the accused appears or is brought before the Court,
the Magistrate may take this decision or the evidence is collected.
In the case of R.Rengarajan v A.Vasudevan, it was held that as Section 245(1) Cr. P.C.,
begins with the words which, if under such consideration, begin with. It shows that the
Magistrate should take into consideration the evidence provided under Section 244 Cr. P.C.
And if he finds that no case has been brought against the accused, that is, if unrebutted
proceedings do not warrant a conviction, there is prima facie evidence, then the accused shall
be discharged from the evidence under Section 245(1) Cr. P.C. Otherwise, under section
246(1) Cr. P.C., he will frame a charge.

B) Mr. 'A' is murdered, where in a F.I.R Mr.'X' and Mr. 'Y' are accused for the murder
of Mr. ‘A'. As per the F.I.R both Mr.'X' and Mr. 'Y' were accused of blowing a fire
from a .12mm gun towards Mr. ‘A' and the injury incurred by both 'X' and 'Y' is on
the left side of the face, where in a forensic science report the reason of death is
due brain injury and only one bullet is recovered from the body of Mr. 'A'. Mr.’Y' is
convicted for the murder of Mr. ‘A'. 

1. HOW CAN A PRIVATE COMPLAINT BE ENTERTAINED AGAINST MR.'X'

ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH MR.'Y' IS ALREADY
BEING CONVICTED? SUPPORT WITH CASE LAWS

In a private complaint case, trial will commence only after framing charges under Section
246 Cr.P.C. that will be only after recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.  While
recording preliminary evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the accused can cross-examine the
witnesses then and there or he may defer the cross to be done after framing of the charges. 
After framing of charges, again the accused can cross-examine the witnesses. That is how, in
a private complaint case, the accused will have two cross-examinations.
 It is pertinent to note that under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., at any previous stage of the case, if
the charge is groundless, he can discharge the accused.  So also at any previous stage of the
case, if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the
Magistrate can frame charge. 
The previous stage would obviously be before the evidence of the prosecution under Section
244(1) Cr.P.C. is completed or any stage prior to that. Such stages would be under Section
200 Cr.P.C. to Section 204 Cr.P.C. Under Section 200, after taking cognizance, the
Magistrate examines the complainant or such other witnesses, who are present. Under Section
201 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is not competent to take the cognizance of the case, he would
return the complaint for presentation to the proper Court or direct the complainant to a proper
Court.
The charge is framed under Section 246(1) Cr.P.C., which runs as under: 246(1) If, when
such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable
under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion,
could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
Therefore, ordinarily, the scheme of the Section 246 Cr.P.C. is that, it is only on the basis of
any evidence that the Magistrate has to decide as to whether there is a ground to presume that
the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter.
Thus as mentioned in the problem that A was murdered, where in a F.I.R is filed against X
and Y, and they are accused for the murder. As per the F.I.R both X and Y were accused of
blowing a fire from a .12mm gun towards A and the injury incurred by both X and Y is on
the left side of the face, where in a forensic science report the reason of death is due brain
injury and only one bullet is recovered from the body of Mr. 'A'. Mr.’Y' is convicted for the
murder of Mr. ‘A'. A private complaint be entertained against mr.'x' on the same cause of
action for which mr.'y' is already being convicted