1. This is a petition filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure IV complaint and Annexure V FIR in Crime No.177/2011 of Vaikom Police Station pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikkom by invoking inherent jurisdiction. Petitioner is the accused in the above crime which is registered for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, which was filed by 2nd respondent in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikkom. Petitioner contended that by using the same cheque an earlier case was filed by the complainant u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala in which he was acquitted. After the acquittal, 2nd respondent preferred the present complaint for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikkom and the complaint was forwarded to Vaikkom Police Station for investigation u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Therefore a second case by using the same cheque for offence u/s.420 IPC is a mere abuse of the process of court which is barred u/s.300 Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The allegation of 2nd respondent in Annexure IV was that petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent on 17.9.2008 and in discharge of that debt, he issued a cheque drawn on Lord Krishna Bank, Mattanchery Branch. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A statutory notice was issued and after receipt of that notice there was no repayment. Hence petitioner cheated the 2nd respondent and committed the offence. In the circumstance, he filed Annexure IV complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikkom. Hence, petitioner approached this court with this petition.

3. Before adverting to the facts in this case I may refer S.300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code which reads as follows:

(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under subsection (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under subsection( 2) thereof.

(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section(1) of section 220.

(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.

(4) a person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.

(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first mentioned Court is subordinate.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897(10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.

4. In a criminal trial the pleas of autrifois acquit and Autrefois convict are taken as a bar to any criminal trial for the reason that the accused had been earlier tried for the same alleged offence and he was either acquitted or convicted. An analysis of the Section 300(1)