The principle of double jeopardy and its application in determining the redundancy of a complaint case when the same cause of action has been resolved in a previous case.

JUDGMENT :

The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahini is present and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sardhu Mahto is also present. None appears on behalf of O.P.no. 2 despite valid service of notice.

3. It appears from the record that on earlier occasion, the notice was issued to the O.P. No.2 on 23.08.2012, which was duly served upon him and acknowledgment with the signature of O.P. No.2 was also received, which is available on the record and thus by the previous order dated 31.07.2014, this court has treated that the notice has been duly served upon O.P. No.2, but nobody has appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sahini and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sardhu Mahto.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Clas, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.65 of 2011 (T.R. No.1194 of 2011), whereby the cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

6. It has been pointed out that the O.P. No.2 had filed the complaint petition before the learned court below against the petitioner alleging the offences committed by the petitioner are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and learned court below after holding the enquiry, found the prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC and accordingly the cognizance has been taken and order for issuance of process against the accused petitioner has been issued, which is under challenge.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on earlier occasion also by the wife of O.P. No.2 Sangita Devi, a complaint case was instituted vide complaint case No.63 of 2009 before the concerned court below against the petitioner and his Firm for the same cause of action, which is related to the sale and purchase of EICHER Truck and the petitioner is said to be the proprietor and dealer of the M/s Ajmera Agency dealing with the sale of EICHER Truck. During the course of transaction, the petitioner had offered to sell the said truck to the wife of O.P. No.2 at the cost of Rs.8,94,419/-and in the course of transaction, a sum of rupees one lac in advance was given by the wife of O.P. No.2 to the petitioner, but somehow the transaction could not take place and the petitioner had returned the advance amount vide three cheques, which were as under:

8. It is admitted fact that the chque of Rs.40,000/- dated 03.11.2008 was encashed and the rest two cheques of Rs.30,000/-dated 06.11.2008 and 11.11.2008 could not be encashed and therefore the complaint case was instituted vide complaint case No.63 of 2009, under which, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-to the O.P.No.2 and his wife jointly on the basis of settlement arrived at between parties amicably during the course of the proceedings of Complaint case No. 63 of 2009 vide order dated 27.09.2019 passed finally in the said Complaint case No. 63 of 2009 on the basis of compromise and settlement between the parties.

9. By virtue of the said order dated 27.09.2019 passed in C.P. Case No.63 of 2009, the dispute between both the parties were resolved once and for all and the complaint case was finally disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought the aforesaid order by I.A. (Cr.) No.1504 of 2020 and it has been pointed out that the said compromise has