Should a judge’s final ruling settle a dispute forever? For the sake of justice and efficiency, the answer is yes, and the doctrine of res judicata can do the same. The doctrine of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle that sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation.
Introduction
Res judicata pro veritate accipitur,” is the full Latin maxim which hasshrunk to mere “Res Judicata.” Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term ‘for a thing already adjudicated’[1]and refers to a case in which there has been a final judgment and bar tore-litigation of a claim between the same parties claiming under the same title. As per Section 11 of CPC, When a matter has been decided between two parties in one suit, and either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or, because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties claiming under the same titleto canvass the matter again. This doctrine is based on two theories: first, the finality and conclusiveness of decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy, and second, to protect from the multiplication of litigation.
Traditionally, the principle of Res Judicata was applied strictly to civil proceedings only. However, its conceptual underpinnings have permeated criminal jurisprudence in the form of analogous doctrines such as Double Jeopardy and Issue Estoppel. While section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, only governs civil proceedings and does not influence criminal proceedings, the Indian Judiciary has recognized the importance of preventing inconsistent findings and repeated prosecution. The Indian Courts, through a series of progressive decisions, have cautiously integrated these principles into criminal law to uphold consistency, prevent judicial contradiction, and protect individuals from vexation of multiplication of litigation. This Article explores the judicial interpretation and will analyse some of the judicial pronouncements to answer whether the principle of Res Judicata applies to writs and to Criminal Proceedings.
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court[2].
As per section 11 of CPC, the incidents of res judicata are-
1. Matter directly and substantially in the issue
2. Both suits must be between the same parties or between parties under whom they are or any of them claim.
3. They should claim under the same title.
4. The court must be competent to try.
This principle of res judicata is embodied in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but even where Section 11 of CPC does not apply, the principle of res judicata extends beyond the literal terms of Section 11 as a matter of equity and public policy[3].
Section 11 is inapplicable between different stages of the same suit. As for example, a decision on defendant’s application to condone non-appearance for ‘good cause’ would not be res judicata in an application filed by him at a later stage to set aside ex-parte decree. In the latter proceeding, the defendant can raise the question of existence of such good cause. Section 11 would not be applicable to such cases, despite the issues being identical as they do not arise in the successive suits[4].
But what if a party does not bring out all the issues in the previous suit? When an issue which a party could have raised in the previous suit is also at issue in a subsequent suit, would that affect her case? Can that party take the defense that res judicata would not apply to bar the litigation on that issue as it was not litigated previously? The answer to these questions is in the affirmative. What law of res judicata bars actively it also bars constructively. The explanation 4 to section 11 of CPC states that if a party could and should have brought up an issue in previous suit, then she must have brought it up. The court will not give any litigant another chance at a hearing on those issues in a subsequent suit. This concept is known as ‘constructive’ res judicata.
In The Mysore State Electricity Board vs. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. & Ors[5], it was observed that It is well settled that in order to decide whether a decision in earlier litigation operates as res judicata, the Court must look at the nature of the litigation, what were the issues raised therein and what was actually decided in it. It is indeed true that what becomes res judicata is the “matter” which is actually chosen and not the reason which leads the Court to decide the ‘matter.’
In Jaswant Singh v. Custodian of Evacuee Property[6], the Court held that in order to establish the defense of res judicata, it is necessary to show that only the cause of action was the same, but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity to get the relief which he is now seeking in the former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceeding is, in fact, founded upon the exact cause of action that was the foundation of the former suit or proceeding.Principles of res judicata are principles of general law; It is applicable to arbitration proceedings as well as awards[7].
Applicability Of Res Judicata In Writ Petitions.
In the case of ‘Daryao v. State of UP (1962), an important question arose before the court whether res judicata is applicable in writ petitions, and the apex court laid down eight principles regarding the applicability of res judicata in writ proceedings. The court ruled that res judicata applies to writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution if the petition is dismissed on merit. The court emphasized that parties cannot bypass the doctrine by invoking different jurisdictions and that the doctrine serves as a barrier to relitigating issues that have been previously adjudicated.
In Devilal v. Sales Tax Officer, the court held that the rule of constructive res judicata also applies to writ proceedings, as it considers public policy and the principle of the finality of judgments as important constituents of the rule of law. If constructive res judicata is not applied, a party can file as many writ petitions as they like, taking one or two points every time, which would be opposed to the considerations of public policy on which res judicata is based and would mean harassment and hardship to the opponent.
The applicability of res judicata on writ petition is further upheld in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara & Ors.[8]The court emphasized that the application of res judicata does not affect the content of fundamental rights guaranteed to Indian citizens, but only regulates the way these rights can be successfully asserted and vindicated in courts of law. In GulabchandChhotalal v. State of Gujarat[9], the court noted that the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not exhaustive and that any previous decision on a matter in controversy, decided after full contest or fair opportunity, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit.
The doctrine of res judicata in criminal proceedings.
Earlier, criminal law did not use the term “res judicata,” but a related principle existed. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution and Section 300 IPC, now under section 377 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023, forbids double jeopardy – “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. This principle is aimed at preventing successive criminal prosecutions for the same act and is a fundamental right under PART III of the Constitution. It embodies the doctrine of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit, which is recognized under Common Law, which respectively bars prosecution after a prior conviction or acquittal for the same offence. This is akin to res judicata in criminal cases. The applicability of res judicata in criminal law has been judicially interpreted through various landmark rulings, where Indian courts have sought to balance procedural justice with constitutional safeguards. Notably, a three-judge bench in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1955) affirmed that the doctrine does apply to criminal cases where there has been a full trial. The Supreme Court (Apr. 2025) clarified that the binding Pritam Singh precedent prevails: findings and issues decided after a full trial in one criminal case cannot be relitigated in another.In Muskan Enterprises &Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab &Anr[10]courtlays down the scenario when the res judicata principle is not applicable to the criminal proceedings, i.e., these are proceedings where the court do not decide on merit. For example, a quashing petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if dismissed as withdrawn, then the subsequent filing of the quashing petition would not be barred by res judicata because the court didn’t decide on the merits.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiliagada Meerayya, AIR 1969 SC 613 The Court ruled that an accused cannot be tried again for the same set of facts if he was earlier acquitted, reiterating the protection under Section 300 CrPC and Article 20(2) These judicial pronouncements collectively indicate that while res judicata as a codified doctrine is absent from criminal law, its substantive values of finality, judicial economy, and protection against abuse of process are well-embedded through the doctrines of issue estoppel and double jeopardy. Courts have consistently held that fairness in criminal trials demands that an accused not be made to face repeated proceedings on settled facts, lest it amount to judicial harassment and a miscarriage of justice. In Ashok Kumar v. State[11], the Delhi High Court held that if a criminal court has already decided a particular factual issue, the state cannot revive the same issue in subsequent litigation. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and protection against harassment through repetitive trials.
The Supreme Court in the case of SC Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh[12]The 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.
Brief facts of the case-
The case stems from a business transaction with ID Packaging, a firm owned by respondent R.N. Tyagi. Tyagi issued 11 cheques between Dec 1997–Jan 1998, 7 of which were dishonored twice. Ruchira Papers filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), leading to Tyagi’s conviction in 2002. His defense that the liability had been cleared via three demand drafts was rejected, and his conviction was upheld in appeal. In 2012, all disputes were settled through a one-time payment of ₹3,20,385, recorded in a High Court order that disposed of related civil and criminal cases. Meanwhile, Tyagi filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging that Garg fraudulently represented the cheques despite receiving payment, leading to FIR No. 549 of 1998. The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned Garg. His plea for quashing the chargesheet and summoning order was rejected, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
“The Court noted that the question of the applicability of the principle of res judicata in criminal proceedings has been considered in several of its earlier decisions. Given the divergence of opinion, the Court deemed it necessary to conduct a deeper examination and review the law laid down in those precedents. The Court clarified that when reading the three earlier decisions alongside the two later ones, there is no inconsistency in the application of the principle of res judicata. The earlier decisions in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab[13], Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan[14], The State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand Jain[15], wherein it was held that the principle that the principle of res judicata is equally applicable in criminal matters was based on prior acquittals following full trials, whereas the later cases Devendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh[16] and Muskan Enterprises v. The State of Punjab[17], wherein it was held that the principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal matter, which was decided at the preliminary stage of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC without any final adjudication on merits.
The Supreme Court underscored the impermissibility of criminal proceedings founded only upon factual assertions that had already been judicially examined and rejected in prior adjudication under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881. The Court found that the present complaint initiated by Garg against Tyagi hinged on the very defense of “payment by demand drafts,” which had earlier been raised and specifically disbelieved in the concluded cheque bounce proceedings.
Therefore, the Court held that these later decisions are clearly distinguishable and do not indicate any divergence in the application of res judicata. In addition, the Court clarified that Pritam Singh was decided by a three-judge Bench, whereas two-judge Benches rendered all subsequent decisions. Therefore, Pritam Singh holds binding authority on the issue of the applicability of the principle of res judicata in criminal proceedings and concluded that prosecution could not be maintained based on allegations that had already been raised as his defense in the earlier proceedings where he was the accused.
Conclusion
While Indian criminal jurisprudence has cautiously and progressively embraced elements of res judicata through related doctrines, there is an urgent need for clarity, codification, and uniform application. Establishing a statutory and jurisprudential framework for the application of issue estoppel and related principles will enhance procedural fairness, reduce judicial burden, and uphold the constitutional values of justice and due process. A modern and robust criminal justice system must prevent repetitive and abusive litigation, not merely for the benefit of the accused, but also for the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process itself.
[1]Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, p.1337
[2]The Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
[3]Lal Chand v. Radha Krishna AIR 1977 SC 789
[4]Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar : AIR 1964 SC 993
[5]1963 (2) SCR 127
[6]1985 (3) SCC 648
[7]Harshankar Pratap Singh v. Lal Raghuraj Singh
[8]AIR 1964 SC 1013
[9](SC) BS110636
[10]2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
[11]2001 Cri LJ 964 (Delhi)
[12]2025 SCC Online SC 791
[13]1955 SCC Online SC 20
[14]1972SCC 466
[15]1974SCC 72
[16]2009 SCC 495
[17]2024 INSC 1046
Author Name- Sunidhi, a 4th-year student at NLU, Shimla.
