Whether second application is maintainable. In other words, whether the principle of res judicata applies to the proceedings under section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. ?
The principle of res judicata is based on two legal maxims – “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, and “nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa”.
Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 50 (Edition 2009) states:
“The term ‘res judicata’ is sometimes used in a broad or generic sense to encompass or describe a group of related concepts concerning the conclusive effect of a final judgment. Used thusly, the term has been stated to encompass merger, bar and collateral estoppel, or claim and issue preclusion. So as to exclude issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, res judicata is sometimes used in a narrow sense. In this context, res judicata is sometimes defined as, considered to be synonymous with, claim preclusion, and many courts treat the two concepts as interchangeable, as by using the phrase ‘res judicata’ or ‘claim preclusion’.”
The principle of res judicata postulates that when the parties have litigated a claim before a court of competent jurisdiction and it has finally decided the controversy, the interests of the State and of the parties require that the validity of the claim and the matters directly and substantially in issue in the action shall not be litigated again by them or their representatives.
Ex-officio Justice of Peace exercises quasi-judicial functions under section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C., in my opinion, the principle of res judicata applies to the applications made to him seeking direction to the officer in-charge of a police station to register FIR under section 154 Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, it does not bar institution of a private complaint as it is an independent statutory remedy.
Writ Petition No. 80439/2021
Shahzad Vs. Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc.
30-03-2022
0 Comments