CRL OP/20851/2003 of 1. CHINNATHURAI Vs SANKAR, S/O. MANNANGATTI, on 9 December 2003

:O R D E R

The above criminal original petition has been filed underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the recordsrelating to Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2003 from the file of the Court of JudicialMagistrate, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District and quash the same.

2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and uponhearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that therespondent herein has lodged a private complaint as against the petitioners/A1and A2 and ten others before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuramfor the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,294,3 23,324 and 506(II)IPC and the said Court has taken it on file in Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2003. Atthis stage, the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 have come forward to file the abovecriminal original petition on averments such as that the respondent hasalready lodged a complaint dated 6.8.2002 before the Vadaponparappi PoliceStation not only against the petitioners but also against 14 others for theoffences punishable under Sections 147,148,294,324,323 and 506(II) IPC and thesaid police also, after thorough investigation have filed a charge-sheetbefore the Court below as against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 alone therebyreferring the matter as mistake of regarding the other accused, A.3 to A.16and the said charge-sheet having been taken on file by the Court below, ispending trial; that at this stage, the respondent herein has again filed theprivate complaint for the same occurrence alleged thereby impleading 12

accused persons, which the Court below has taken on file and issued summons tothe accused including the petitioners; that the Vadaponparappi police havingconducted the investigation in the earlier complaint, have filed thecharge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., referring the case as mistake offact as against A.3 to A.16 and the learned Magistrate has also passed theorders and therefore the learned Magistrate cannot entertain the secondcomplaint for the same occurrence and the sae is not maintainable; that theaccused cannot be punished twice for the same occurrence particularly thepetitioners who are accused in C.C.No.220/2003 and also in the privatecomplaint filed in Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2003 in connection with the occurrencedated 6.8.2002. On such grounds, the petitioners would pray for the reliefextracted supra.

3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would only reiterate what has already been traced in theabove original petition without any new fact or circumstance or law havingbeen brought forth. On the contrary, on the part of the learned counsel forthe respondent, he would submit that since the complaint lodged by therespondent with the Vadaponparappi Police in Cr.No.22 6/2002 was referred asmistake of fact in respect of A.3 to A.16 therein without proper reasons, therespondent has filed the private complaint before the Court below and thusthere is no illegality and would pray to dismiss the above criminal originalpetition.

4. The case of the petitioners is that for one and the same

Conclusion

occurrence, a case has been registered by Vadaponparappi Police in their CrimeNo.226/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148,294 ,324,323and 506(II) IPC and a charge-sheet has also been filed against the petitionersalone while referring the case against the other accused therein by the saidpolice and the same having been taken on file by the jurisdiction Court, theCourt of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram, for its consideration ontrial. Again on a private complaint filed against 12 of the 16 accused citedin the earlier complaint, which includes the first and second accused thereinalso, who are none other than the petitioners herein, against whom thechargesheet has been laid, whether a private complaint filed against them alsoas the first and second accused could be entertained by the same Magistrate inhis Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2003 for a second time for one and the same occurrenceis the point that is to be decided on the legal parameters.

5. It is not only mandated under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India that no one could be either tried or punished twice forone and the same offence but the same is also embodied in the Code of CriminalProcedure and therefore in view of the charge-sheet laid in C. C.No.220 of2003 pertaining to Cr.No.226/2002 on investigation by the jurisdiction police,which is also alleged to have been taken on file by the jurisdictionMagistrate against the petitioners, no second complaint on the same subjectcould be either entertained or proceeded with for any purpose and the samebecomes liable only to be quashed as against the petitioners alone and thesame is ordered accordingly.

In result,

(i) the above criminal original petition succeeds and the same is allowed.

(ii) The private complaint taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.321 of 2003 by the Courtof Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram, is quashed insofar as the petitionersare concerned.

Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.5947 of 2003 is closed.

Index: YesInternet: Yes

Rao

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate,Sankarapuram,Villupuram District.

2. The Station House Officer,Vadaponparappi Police Station,Villupuram District.