Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that res judicata applies to criminal proceedings as well. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of SC Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of SC Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Case?   

• S.C. Garg (appellant) was the Managing Director of Ruchira Papers Ltd., a company manufacturing craft papers. 
• The company had business dealings with ID Packaging, a partnership concern of R.N. Tyagi (respondent no. 2). 
• Between December 1997 and January 1998, Tyagi issued 11 cheques to Ruchira Papers Ltd., which were initially dishonoured due to insufficient funds. 
• Both parties agreed to present the cheques again later upon Tyagi's instructions. 
• For liabilities other than those covered by the 11 cheques, Tyagi issued 3 demand drafts to Garg's company. 
• When the 11 cheques were presented again on 8th June 1998, only 4 were cleared, while the remaining 7 cheques were dishonoured. 
• Garg's company filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against ID Packaging and Tyagi regarding the 7 dishonoured cheques. 
• On 25th October 2002, the Magistrate convicted Tyagi, rejecting his defense that the debt had already been paid through demand drafts. 
• Tyagi was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 3,20,385/- (the total amount of the 7 dishonoured cheques). 
• The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Tyagi's appeal against the conviction on 17th March 2005. 
• While Tyagi's criminal revision petition was pending, the High Court disposed of multiple proceedings between the parties on 10th October 2012, based on a compromise. 
• The compromise involved Tyagi paying Rs. 3,20,385/- to Garg's company in full satisfaction of all claims. 
• During the ongoing proceedings, Tyagi filed an application seeking registration of an FIR against Garg, alleging that despite payment through demand drafts, Garg fraudulently presented the cheques again and received payment for 4 of them. 
• An FIR (No. 549 of 1998) was registered against Garg, but not against his company, and a charge sheet was filed. 
• The Magistrate summoned the accused persons, including Garg, on 19th June, 2002. 
• Garg filed a petition to quash the chargesheet and summoning order, which was dismissed by the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the finding recorded by the finding recorded by the jurisdictional criminal court in Section 138 NI Act proceeding between the parties would be binding to both the parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue. 
• The Court discussed the law on applicability of res judicata in criminal matters. 
• The Court held that the two decisions where res judicata was not applied to criminal proceedings involved petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • In the case of Devendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) the first petition was for quashing of the FIR and the second petition was preferred after the Magistrate took cognizance of the matter. 
  • In the case of Muskan Enterprises & Anr v. State of Punjab (2024) the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn whereas the second petition was held not maintainable due to earlier withdrawal without any liberty. 
• The Court thus held that Tyagi cannot maintain a prosecution on the basis of allegations which were precisely his defence in the earlier proceedings wherein he was an accused. Thus, the present criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 
• The Court quashed the proceedings under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What is the Law Surrounding Applicability of Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings? 

• The question as to the applicability of principle of res judicata in criminal matters have been considered by this Court in several decisions 
• In the case of Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab (1956) the Court cited the case of Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federal of Malya (1950) and laid down the following: 
  • The maxim of res judicata is applicable to criminal as well as civil proceeding. 
  • The case involves accused Pritam Singh who was first tried and acquitted under the Arms Act for possession of a weapon. 
  • In a subsequent murder trial, the prosecution attempted to use the same weapon recovery as evidence against him. 
  • The Additional Sessions Judge in the murder case disregarded the previous acquittal, stating that opinions in the earlier judgment were not binding and irrelevant under the Indian Evidence Act. 
  • The Additional Sessions Judge independently evaluated the evidence and concluded the weapon recovery was proven against Pritam Singh. 
  • The High Court disagreed with this approach and cited Lord MacDermott's observations from Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor (1950). 
  • Lord MacDermott's cited opinion states that an acquittal verdict is not only a bar to retrial for the same offense but is "binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties." 
  • The High Court affirmed that the maxim "res judicata pro veritate accipitur" (a matter adjudged is accepted as the truth) applies to criminal proceedings as well as civil ones. 
  • According to this principle, once Pritam Singh was acquitted of possessing ammunition, the prosecution was bound to accept that verdict and could not challenge it in the second trial. 
• In Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1972) the Court approved the view laid down in the case of Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federal of Malya (1950).