Judgment

BHAGWATI. J.: - On 17th May 1965 a lorry loaded with heavy logs of wood was driven by the third respondent through a narrow lane off Kalighat Road and brought to a halt in front of a saw mill of which Respondent No. 1 was the owner and Respondent No. 2, the manager. Whilst the logs of wood were being unloaded from the lorry by two coolies, they fell on a girl called Mita Mukherjee and resulted in her death. A first information report was thereupon lodged with Bhawanipur Police Station against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the two coolies who were unloading the logs of wood. On the basis of this first information report, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were prosecuted in the Court of the Magistrate, Alipore. Respondent No. 1 was also joined as an accused though his name did not appear in the first information report. The two coolies were absconding and they were, therefore, left out of the criminal case. The charge against Respondent No. 1 was that though residents of the locality had repeatedly asked him not to allow entry of lorries dangerously loaded with heavy logs of wood into the narrow lane he did not pay any heed and on or about 17th May, l965 the third respondent engaged by him drove the lorry in question dangerously with heavy logs of wood and kept the lorry in the narrow lane in front of the saw mill rashly and neg1igently and his manager, the 2nd respondent, had logs of wood unloaded rashly and negligently without due care and caution to guard against the dangerous consequences and caused the death of Mita Mukherjee and thereby committed an offence under Section 304A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. There was also a similar charge against respondent No. 2 under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The 1st respondent filed an application being Criminal Revision No. 1375 of 1965 in the Calcutta High Court for quashing the proceeding on the ground that it constituted an abuse of the process of the Court and in any event, its Quashing would secure the ends of justice. A Division Bench of the High Court rejected the application by an order dated 12th December, 1968. The only ground on which the application was rejected was that "the points raised depend on certain questions of fact which have to be ascertained on evidence by the Court of facts" and the Division Bench did not, therefore propose "to interfere with the proceeding against the petitioner at this stage". Though this order rejecting the application was made on 12th December, 1968, no progress at all was made in the criminal case until March, 1970. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, once again moved the Calcutta High Court for quashing the proceeding and this time the Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 7th April, 1970 allowed the application and quashed the proceeding on the ground that no prima facie case was at all made out and the continuance of the proceeding was, therefore an abuse of the process of the Court. The State was of the view that once the High Court had rejected an application for quashing the proceeding by its order dated l2th December, l968, it was not competent to the High Court to entertain another application for the same purpose as that would amount to the High Court reviewing its earlier order which the High Court had no jurisdiction to do An application was, therefore, made by the State to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 134 of the Constitution and such leave was granted by an order dated 25th November, l970. Hence, the present appeal.

2. The main question debated before us was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make the order dated 7th April, 1970 quashing the proceeding against Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 when on an earlier application made by the 1st respondent, the High Court had by its order dated l2th December, 1968 refused to quash the proceeding. Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the State strenuously contended that the High Court was not competent to entertain the