Bangkok Legal Service

Facts:
Mr. Phitsawong, as a private complainant, initiated a criminal action against Mr. Jerm for the alleged murder of his son. The court scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the case had sufficient merit.

Subsequently, the public prosecutor filed a separate criminal action against Mr. Jerm based on the same facts and offence.

Mr. Phitsawong then applied to join the prosecutor’s case as a co-plaintiff, subject to the condition that, if the court in his privately initiated case found a prima facie case, he would withdraw his original action, leaving only the prosecution in which he participates as a co-plaintiff.

The public prosecutor raised no objection.

Issue:
Whether the court may permit the private complainant to maintain or conditionally withdraw one action while joining another, where both actions arise from the same cause.

Legal Analysis:
The principle prohibiting multiplicity of proceedings applies. A single injured party is not entitled to institute or maintain two separate actions against the same defendant based on the same cause of action.

Even though the complainant proposes a conditional withdrawal, at the time of consideration, two parallel proceedings still exist. Such conduct constitutes duplicative litigation which is impermissible under Thai procedural law.

The absence of objection by the public prosecutor does not cure this defect, as it concerns public order and judicial economy.

Conclusion:
The court should refuse the application. The complainant cannot proceed with or conditionally maintain dual actions in respect of the same matter.