Point of Law: Complaint filed by the respondent No.2 would be barred by Section 300 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code being successive prosecution as for the very set of allegations, earlier complaint filed by the wife of the respondent No.2 was dismissed up to sessions Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Mehulsharad Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned APP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent – State.

2. As identical issue is involved in both these petitions, on a joint request made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP, these petitions are disposed of by passing a common order.

3. Short facts emerged from the petitions arise as under. For the sake of convenience, Special Criminal Application No.2429/2014 is treated as lead matter.

3.1 “The respondent No.2, filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar under Section 500 of the IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Porbandar, after recording verification and statement of the witnesses, issued process against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. Initially, the petitioners preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.1384/2012 with Criminal Misc. Application No.1385/2012 before this Court. But, on 08.02.2012, under the instruction of the petitioners, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw both these applications with a liberty to take action in accordance with law before the competent Court with regard to the subject matter and therefore, permission was granted with clarification that Court has not entered into the merits of the case and the subject matter of the complaint will be decided by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar issuing process against him in connection with the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Criminal Case No.1605/2011 by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 before the learned Sessions Judge at Porbandar.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar by his order dismissed the revision application on 13.05.2014. Hence this petition is submitted under Article 226 of Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner has sought following relief in the present petition.

“7(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of both the Courts below and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 13.5.2014 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 and the order of issuance of process passed against the petitioner by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar u/s. 204 of Cr.P.C. In Criminal Case No.3605/2011, in the interest of justice;

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(AA) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash the impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.3605/2011 filed in the Court of Ld. CJM, Porbandar for the offences punishable u/s. 500 of IPC and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto, in the interest of justice;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the further proceedings of complaint being Criminal Case No.3605/2011 filed in the Court of Ld. CJM, Porbandar for the offences punishable u/s. 500 of IPC, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned orders dated 13.05.2014 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Criminal Revision Application No.8/2012 and the order of issuance of process passed against the petitioner by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar u/s. 204 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No.3605/2011, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice;

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dev Patel appearing for learned advocate