Free Judiciary Practice Hub

Model answer

Introduction. Res judicata rests on two maxims: nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause) and interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the public interest that litigation ends). Section 11 CPC codifies it.

Essentials. (1) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the later suit was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (2) the former suit was between the same parties or those claiming under them; (3) they litigated under the same title; (4) the former court was competent to try the later suit; and (5) the matter was heard and finally decided.

Constructive res judicata. Explanation IV to Section 11 provides that any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack or defence in the former suit is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. It prevents a party from splitting its pleas across suits. Example: A sues B for possession on the basis of a sale deed and loses. A cannot file a fresh suit on the basis of adverse possession that existed when the first suit was filed.

Case law. Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960) applied the principle between different stages of the same proceeding. Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (1986) explained “might and ought”. The doctrine also applies to writ petitions (Daryao v. State of U.P., 1961), though not to habeas corpus.

Conclusion. Res judicata, including its constructive form, secures finality and prevents abuse of process, while exceptions such as fraud, lack of jurisdiction and pure questions of law on jurisdiction keep it fair.

Model answer

Introduction. Section 173 BNSS replaces Section 154 CrPC. It retains the mandatory registration of cognizable offences affirmed in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014), while adding three changes.

1. Zero FIR. Information must be recorded “irrespective of the area where the offence is committed”. The station registers the FIR and transfers it to the station having jurisdiction. This codifies a practice recommended after 2012 and spares victims from being sent from station to station.

2. e-FIR. Information may be given by electronic communication. It must be signed by the informant within three days, after which it is taken on record.

3. Preliminary enquiry. Under Section 173(3), for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, the officer may, with permission of an officer not below DSP, conduct a preliminary enquiry within 14 days to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, or proceed with investigation.

Safeguards for women. Information about specified sexual offences by a woman is recorded by a woman officer, and for persons with disabilities at their residence or convenient place, with videography.

Remedies on refusal. Section 173(4) allows the informant to approach the Superintendent of Police, and thereafter a Magistrate under Section 175(3), now with an affidavit requirement following Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015).

Conclusion. The changes widen access to criminal justice. The preliminary-enquiry provision, however, must be applied narrowly so that it does not dilute Lalita Kumari.