A second complaint for the same incident is not maintainable unless it discloses a distinct offence or presents new material, reaffirming the principle against double jeopardy.

JUDGMENT :

L. S. Pirzada, J.

1. The present revision application has been filed by the applicant–original accused no. 2 under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi in Inquiry Case No. 14 of 2006, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and ordered issuance of non-bailable warrants against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Magistrate has further directed the Registry to register the case by assigning a new criminal case number and ordered that Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 be amalgamated with the present complaint and that both matters be tried together.

2. The factual background leading to the filing of the present revision application is that respondent No. 2 – the original complainant lodged an FIR being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004 at Kadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act against five accused persons, including the present petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. 2. In the nutshell, original complainant - Jhala Bhupatsinh Kuvarsinh, lodged the said FIR on 20.03.2004.

3. In a nutshell, it is alleged in the FIR that on the date of the incident, at about 5:30 p.m., the complainant was at his home when his cousin brother, Jenaji Pruthviraj, came to his house on a scooter and asked him to accompany him for purchasing goats. Thereafter, both of them proceeded on the scooter towards Charol Road, and at about 5:45 p.m., when they reached near Visatpura Chokdi, accused persons, namely Patel Munabhai Zaverbhai, Patel Ratilal Ambalal, Patel Bhemabhai Chaturbhai, Patel Mavjibhai Maganbhai and Patel Babubhai, Doctor, all residents of Village Visatpura intercepted them and started abusing Jenaji. Jenaji then drove the scooter forward, and both of them thereafter proceeded to Koyda Village, where, after making inquiries regarding goats, thereafter they returned at about 7:00 p.m. At around 7:50 p.m., when they reached near Visathpur Village, the same accused persons were present with a tractor. They stopped the scooter, and accused - Munnabhai, who was armed with a spade (locally known as “Kodali”), assaulted Jenaji on the head. Accused Bhutabhai Chaturbhai Patel also beat Jenaji with a stick, and the remaining accused Mavjibhai, Babubhai, and Ratilal, who were armed with sticks, also assaulted him. Thereafter, the accused started the tractor and ran it over Jenaji. They then threw him to the side of the road and fled away from the scene. The complainant then called his relatives, and upon reaching the place of the incident, they found that Jenaji had already expired, his skull was fractured, he had sustained multiple injuries, and the front portion of the scooter was damaged. Thereafter, the complainant informed Kadi Police Station and lodged the FIR against the said five accused persons.

3.1. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and thereafter, on the request of the original complainant, the investigation was transferred to the Local Crime Branch, Mehsana. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge- sheet against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3.2 Thereafter, being aggrieved by filing of the charge- sheet, the original complainant moved an application before the learned Magistrate, Kadi, seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application by order dated 13.09.2005. The said order was challenged by the original complainant – p