Rule of issue estoppel in criminal law

Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 245



S. 300 - Rule of issue estoppel - Applicability - Explained - Distinguished from principle of double jeopardy or autrefois
acquit, as embodied in S. 300 CrPC - Reiterated, the rule of issue estoppel prevents re-litigation as to an issue already
determined in a criminal trial between the parties concerned - In terms of that rule, a finding of fact already recorded by
competent court in favour of accused at an earlier trial, cannot be disturbed when accused is tried subsequently, even for
a distinct offence, which might be permitted by S. 300(2) - For invocation of rule of issue estoppel, not only the parties in
the two trials should be the same but also the fact in issue, proved or not, as present in earlier trial must be identical to
what is sought to be reagitated in subsequent trial -
Thus, where High Court in an earlier criminal contempt case [filed by
R-1 against appellant] had already dealt with the issue involved in present criminal complaint filed by R-1 against
appellant, and that matter stood closed at the instance of R-1 himself, held, there was no justification to launch the
instant criminal prosecution on the said basis afresh, (2013) 9 SCC 245-B
SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
S. 3(1)(viii) - Applicability - Offence thereunder as to institution of false, vexatious, etc. legal proceedings against a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe - Word false - Meaning and Scope of - Explained - Held, merely
because a party is unable to prove a fact in a case, the same cannot be categorised as false in each and every case -
Term false is distinct from the term not proved - Where appellant preferred an application for quashing of FIR lodged
against him at the instance of R-1, and was unsuccessful therein, held, the same did not mean that appellant had filed a
false case against R-1, (2013) 9 SCC 245-C
SCs, STs, OBCs and Minorities
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
S. 3(1)(viii) - Offence under, as to institution of false, malicious or vexatious _ legal proceedings against a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe - Words malicious/mala fides or vexatious - Meaning and Scope of - Explained,
(2013) 9 SCC 245-D
Constitution of India
Art. 141 - Precedents - Binding nature of a Supreme Court's decision - Relevant principles - Facts which do not affect
the binding value of the decision - Reiterated, even if a particular issue was not agitated earlier or a particular argument
was advanced but not considered, the said judgment would not lose its binding effect, provided that the point with
reference to which an argument is subsequently advanced, has actually been decided - The decision therefore would not
lose its authority, merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered or fallaciously reasoned, (2013) 9 SCC
245-E

Res judicata
Issue estoppel - Judgment of a competent court in respect of parties concerned - Binding nature of - Subsequent case
between those parties in the same matter on the basis of attempted change in the form of earlier petition or grounds
thereof - Impermissibility of, (2013) 9 SCC 245-F
Constitution of India
Art. 136 - Scope of interference under Art. 136 - Interference in criminal matters - Art. 136 - Quashing of criminal
proceedings - Observations made during, not to affect either of the parties in any civil/revenue case pending before an
appropriate authority/court, (2013) 9 SCC 245-G

Print Page