ORDER :

The second accused in C.C. No. 89 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Sulthan Bathery has moved this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B final report and all proceedings initiated pursuant to the same in Crime No.3/2019 of Pulpalli police station pending before that Court. According to him, Crime No.3/2019 of Pulpalli police station was registered against himself and others by the Sub Inspector of that police station Smt.Rajeena K. Jose on 03.01.2019 at 11.10 hours alleging offence under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 188, 353 and 341 read with 149 of IPC and Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act. The crime was registered suo motu by the Sub Inspector on the basis of the cause of action arisen at 09.40 hours on 03.01.2019. Going by the FIR, a harthal was observed under the auspices of the Sabarimala Achara Samrakshana Samithi, in protest against entry of women in Sabarimala. That day at 9.40 a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 6 along with other identifiable persons carrying lethal weapons like stone, stick, etc. formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, raised provocative slogans against the Chief Minister of Kerala. When they were asked to disperse, the lawful directions of the officials were not obeyed by them, they also pelted stones at Shaji Textiles, Pulpalli in disobedience of the lawful directions; when they were resisted by police officials, they obstructed their official discharge of functions; they also intimidated the police officials. Thus, the Sub Inspector registered the crime suo motu. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid and that was how the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 89/2019.

2. The petitioner submits that the case was registered by the 2nd respondent who herself conducted investigation and laid the charge sheet. On the same day and same facts, another crime as Crime No.4/2019 of Pulpalli police station was also registered against the petitioner and others on the basis of the First Information Statement furnished by one Sebastian. That crime was also registered by the same Sub Inspector, who, after conclusion of investigation laid charge sheet alleging offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 308, 427 and 506 read with 149 of the IPC. On completion of formalities the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Sulthan Bathery from where it was committed to the Sessions Court where the case was taken on file as S.C. No.135/2019. According to the petitioner, he was the 4th accused in S.C. No. 135/2019, he along with others stood trial and by Annexure-E judgment dated 29.01.2021 himself and three others were found guilty of offence under Sections 143 and 147 read with 149 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.3,000/- each; they were found not guilty and acquitted of other offences. On the same set of facts, thus Annexure-B charge sheet was laid. He faced trial and suffered conviction and now he is again being called upon to answer the Annexure B charge, which is bad and violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, entire proceedings in Annexures-A and B are sought to be quashed.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the arguments and also placed reliance on the decision reported in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another [(2011) 2 SCC 703]. According to him, both the crimes have been registered on the same set of facts and therefore, after having suffered conviction in Crime No.4/2019, it is illegal to proceed against him again in Crime No.3/2019.

5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the application. According to him, even tho