SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.
Ashish —Petitioner
versus
State of M.P. & Anr. —Respondents
Misc. Criminal Case No.1508 of 2014
Decided on 4.12.2014

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Shri A.R. Shivhare, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1/State: Shri R.S. Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For the Respondent No.2:Shri Vinod Pathak, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT:
No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 300—Double jeopardy—No person shall be prosecuted and punished for same offence more than once—Petition for quashing FIR and proceedings on registered u/s 498A and 506/34 IPC on 8.11.2013 on plea that earlier FIR registered u/s 498A and 506/34 IPC on 15.4.2012 by same complainant had ended in acquittal—Allegation of demand of Rs.8,000 and Five Beeghas of land and harassment due to not fulfilling the demand were present in both FIRs—Petitioner could not be prosecuted for same offence and FIR was liable to be quashed. (Paras 7, 8, 10 to 12)

       Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the FIR and further proceedings of Criminal Case No.15963/2013 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.581/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC at police Station Kampoo, Distt. Gwalior.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on. 8.11.13 the complainant/respondent No.2 has lodged a report against the petitioner and his family members at police Station, Kampoo Distt. Gwalior, alleging that her marriage got solemnized with the petitioner on 19.2.2007 in which her father gave jewellery and other items total worth Rs.3,00,000 and one motorcycle in dowry. It is further alleged that petitioner and her parents used to demand Rs.80,000 more and five Beegha of land and also used to harass her physically and mentally on account of not fulfilling the demand of dowry. It is further alleged that petitioner and his family members beat her on 3.11.13, 5.11.13 and 7.11.13. Thereafter, she lodged the report on 8.11.13. On this report, the police registered the offence under Sections 498A/506/34 of IPC at Crime No.581/13 against the petitioner, his parents, brother and sister and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against them and the case is pending before the learned trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a false report against the petitioner mentioning wrong facts and suppressing the original facts. He further submitted that earlier also complainant/respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR (Annexure A2) against petitioner and his parents which was registered under Section 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Crime No.33/12 at police Station, Mahila Thana Padav, Distt. Gwalior. In that case, police Station Mahila Thana Padav submitted the charge-sheet against petitioner and their parents before the trial Court. The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted all the accused persons including the petitioner vide judgment dated 31.12.12 passed in Criminal Case No.4125/12. It is also submitted that complainant respondent No.2 has suppressed these facts of the earlier FIR in the present report. It is also submitted that petitioner had filed a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 21.5.2010 against respondent No.2 which is still pending in the Family Court as Case No.30-A/2010 HMA and after filing of that petition respondent No.2 has lodged this false report against the; petitioner and his family members. It is also submitted that allegations in both the FIRs are same and as per Section 300 of Cr.P.C. no .person can be prosecuted more than once for the same offence and the law does not permit further prosecution of the accused on the same facts. In support of the submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Rafiq Khan and another v. Smt. Jamila Bee and another, 1999 (1) JLJ 388. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel prays for quashing of the FI.R as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No.15963/13 pending in Court of JMFC, Gwalior.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant respondent No.2 submitted that facts of both the FIRs are different. He has also submitted that FIR (Annexure A1) was lodged before the appearance of respondent No.2 complainant before the Family Court in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also submitted that petitioner and his parents were acquitted by the JMFC on 31.12.12 only on the ground that complainant/respondent No.2 & her father did not depose against the accused and prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/State also controverted the submissions made on bebalf of the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. The only question arises for consideration in this petition is as to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top