The Case of Krishna Lal Chawla vs the State of UP (2021)

Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., comprised the Division Bench that heard the vexatious complaint case of krishna lal chawla vs the state of up before the Supreme Court. The Bench underlined the significance of promptly looking into such claims while voicing reservations regarding these processes.

In order to protect the fundamental rights of Indian citizens, magistrates and trial judges bear just as much, if not more, responsibility than the highest court in the nation. It emphasized the lower judiciary’s responsibility to guard against the misuse of the criminal justice system. This is a case that never ought to have made it all the way to this Court.

Not for the judges’ personal gain, but rather to safeguard people from abuses of power, the concept of judicial independence was created. Judges must so follow the law and refrain from acting arbitrarily by making decisions based only on their own interests. This means that judges must, whenever feasible, uphold both national and international human rights laws in order to protect individual security. In a judicial system founded on respect for the rule of law, strong, independent, and unbiased attorneys are also necessary to look into and prosecute claims of crimes against human beings, even if the crimes were carried out by people acting in official capacities.

How can magistrates swiftly administer justice?

It is impossible to overstate the importance of magistrates to the daily operations of the federal trial courts. Nowadays, fewer civil and criminal cases get to trial, and many federal lawsuits settle early in the legal process. In minor and civil cases, the litigants and their attorneys will often meet and communicate with the Magistrate, and, in some situations, only the Magistrate, as their case is litigated through the federal trial court, while District Judges handle major criminal cases.

The magistrate also chooses attorneys for some defendants (and, in the misdemeanour sense, holds trials and finds defendants guilty); mediates conflicts over evidence; considers multiple motions; determines when criminal suspects will be detained or released on parole; and renders decisions on writs of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judges hear the entire case, rule on all motions, and conduct trials when all parties to a civil matter consent.

A judge who is successful needs to have the following attributes:

• committed to pursuing justice; careful, methodical, and organized in their work approach;
• Sincere and impartial while adjudicating cases; elegant and well-groomed;
• courteous and patient, yet able to command deference and maintain a firm grip on the legal proceedings;
• logical and able to analyse an argument and reach a conclusion using common sense;
• Capable of coming to a conclusion and making decisions; perceptive and thoughtful while taking in information.

Jurisdictional Competence

• According to Principle 3 of the Basic Principles, the Judiciary’s autonomous decision-making power includes jurisdiction over all matters of a constitutional existence and the final authority to decide whether a matter submitted for review is within its jurisdiction as defined by law.
• The principle of judicial sovereignty in ascertaining legitimacy is widely recognized both domestically and internationally. It is exemplified by Articles 32(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and 36(6) of the Rule of the International Court of Justice.

krishna lal chawla vs the state of up Case Facts

• The facts and circumstances showed that the parties had been at conflict since 2006. The story provided by the respondent states that the appellants visited his home, threatened to kill him and his wife, and assaulted them with iron rods.
• Relentless counter-allegations were made by the appellants against the respondent. On May 8, 2012, the appellant filed a response to the respondent’s Non-Cognizable Report.
• The appellant applied to the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, over five years after the incident, asking for permission for the police to look into.
• Dissatisfied with the charges and charge sheet against him, the Respondent filed a second private complaint against the Appellant according to section 200 of the crpc Complaint Case regarding the same incident that happened on August 5, 2012, for which the Appellant had already paid compensation.
• However, the new complaint contained allegations of fraud, injury to a bull, document forgery, and other things.

krishna lal chawla vs the state of up Issues

• If the filed private complaint is legitimate or not.
• Whether a party may make more than one complaint regarding the same incident against the same accused.

krishna lal chawla vs the state of up: Provisions Involved

• The offence of killing or maiming livestock, etc., of any value, or any animal valued at fifty rupees, is covered by Section 429 of the IPC.
• The CrPC’s Section 468 prohibits bringing legal action after the statute of limitations has passed.
• The IPC’s Section 506 addresses the penalty for criminal intimidation.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code deals with penalties for Willful Harm
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code deals with deliberate insult with the aim to cause disturbance.
• The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 10 gives the Board the authority to enact regulations.
• Animal cruelty is defined in Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
• Article 142 of the Constitution deals with Supreme Court rulings and orders to be enforced, save in cases of discovery, etc.

krishna lal chawla vs the state of up Judgment

• The respondent’s attorney attempted to defend the impugned orders by citing the following passage from this court’s ruling in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & ors., which held that any additional complaint made against the same accused by the same complainant or others after a case has been registered is forbidden by the Code because an investigation into this matter would have already begun and any additional complaint against the same accused would amount to an improvement on the facts stated in the initial complaint.
• The court noted that the magistrate had a duty to investigate any potential for improper use of the court’s processes, conduct additional research, and, following judicial consideration, reject the baseless allegation right away.
• The complainant should have applied to the magistrate if he had been dissatisfied with the delay in the investigation of his previous case, the court ruled.
• After considering the ruling in the Upkar Singh case, the court determined that even though the case concerned cognizable offenses, the same principle would still be applicable in situations where someone provides information about a non-cognizable offense and then files a private complaint against the same accused party.
• The court determined that allowing a party to file more than one complaint about the same incident, regardless of whether it is a private or cognizable offence, will result in the accused being involved in several criminal cases. As a result, he would have to continually give up his freedom and valuable time in front of the authorities and the courts, as needed in each instance.
• As a result, the court halted the respondent’s proceedings by using the authority granted under article 142 of the indian constitution.

The main question in the current case is whether a party may file more than one complaint against the same accused for the same incident. In this instance, the court reached an unfavorable decision.

In this instance, the court believed that allowing the same party to file more than one complaint regarding the same incident, regardless of whether it is a private or cognizable offence, will result in the accused being involved in several criminal processes. Allowing them to be brought into criminal procedures for a minor offense that were started six years after the alleged incidence is unfair. The court ruled that they could not live with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, subject to random attacks and harassment at the whim of a litigant.

The court deduced its ruling from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a prompt trial. According to this interpretation, this entitlement extends to the earlier phases of the inquiry and police investigation in addition to the actual trial held before the court. Thus, the court dismissed the petitions brought against the respondent by using the authority granted by Article 142 of the Constitution.

An essential role that magistrates and magistrates’ courts play in the administration of justice is theirs. They oversee numerous court cases in India and are at the core of ensuring regional accountability to the people. The criminal justice platform’s course, once set in motion, is largely determined by the magistrate’s judicial application of mind, according to the court. It continued by saying that the Magistrate must only allow criminal law to proceed after confirming that a valid case may be brought and that the authority to issue a summons order is of utmost importance. Ultimately, it is important to protect citizens’ civil rights, and all parties involved in the process should act honourably and uphold the integrity of the constitution.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf