Point of Law : Section 300 CrPC provides as follows Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.30720 of 2014 pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, arising out of Crime No.780 of 2013, registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioner was accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.216 of 2014, registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 120B, 114 & 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. The allegation against the petitioner is that, during 2007-08, he was pursuing his law study in the University College of Law, Bangalore and during that period, one Sangeetha was also pursuing her studies at B.M.S. College, as a commerce student. It is alleged that accused No.1 had fallen in love with the lady, but the lady was not interested in accused No.1. On several incidents unfolding accused No.1 is said to have made several proposals of marrying the said lady. Due to caste barriers, the same did not take place.

4. Marriage between the said lady was fixed with one P.G. Deepak who belonged to the same community as that of the lady, to be performed on 28.04.2013. The petitioner is alleged to have made several attempts to convince the lady but in vain and finally, it is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy to eliminate P.G.Deepak. This led to the aforesaid allegation against the petitioner on the score that the petitioner had assaulted P.G.Deepak from backside of the head, which had caused fatal injuries. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 27th May 2020, acquitted the petitioner of the offences punishable as afore-quoted, since the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused became entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. This order of acquittal is said to have become final.

5. Based on the same incident, another crime was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.344 of 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 120B, 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC, in which, the Police after investigation had filed a charge sheet and the case later becomes C.C.No.30720/2014. The allegation against the petitioner in the said criminal case was that he had purchased a Vodafone sim card in order to communicate with his friend Lokesh in the name of Shivaraj. The allegation was thus cheating, falsification of records and production of false documents for the purpose of cheating. These allegations also arose out of the very same incident which led to registration of Sessions Case No.216 of 2014 against the petitioner along with others. The petitioner having been acquitted of the offences in Sessions Case No.216 of 2014 has now approached this Court in the subject petition contending that continuation of trial in the subject C.C.No.30720 of 2014 is hit by Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid offences in S.C.No.216 of 2014 and in the subject C.C.No.30720 of 2014, arose out of the very same incident and the very same complaint registered on 14-11-2013. In the Sessions case what was added was offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and in the subject case what is alleged is falsification of documents and cheating for the purpose of securing a sim card. Therefore, the foundation of both the Sessions case and the present case is one and the same and the petitioner having been acquitted of the offences in S.C.No.216 of 2014, the subject case cannot be continued any further as it would hit by Section 300 of