Section 300 of the CrPC does not bar a private complaint for different offenses arising from the same transaction if the ingredients of the offenses are fundamentally different.

The order of discharge is being challenged in this revision.

2. The petitioner and others were attacked by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint to the police. On behalf of the respondents, a counter complaint was also given. The police instead of filing charge sheet in respect of one case, filed a charge sheet under section 160, I.P.C. against both parties. It is stated that this case ended in acquittal.

3. In the mean time, the petitioner on receipt of a referred notice sent by the police, filed a private complaint against the respondents in respect of the said incident for the offences under sections 147, 341, 323, 326 and 506(ii), I.P.C. This was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and summons were served on the respondents. The witnesses on behalf of the petitioner/complainant were produced and examined. On behalf of the respondents, they were cross-examined. Before framing charges against the respondents, the respondents filed an application for discharge.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties allowed the application discharging the respondents on three grounds.

(1) In respect of the same transaction, the case was already filed by the police under section 160 I.P.C. and the same ended in acquittal. Therefore, under section 300, Cr.P.C. the present second complaint is not maintainable.

(2) The F.I.R. alleged to have been filed by the complainant before the police before filing of this private complainant, has not been produced before the Court.

(3) The comparison of the sworn statement with the deposition of P.W. 1, would go to show the contradictions.

5. While challenging this order containing the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend on the basis of the several judgments reported in 1961 Mad WN 162 (Anantharaman v. Ramaswamy), 1969 Mad LW (Cri) 255 (Prabakaran, In re, (K. N. Mudaliar, J.), 1976 CrLJ 868 (All) (Maidhan Gupta v. State of U.P.), 1978 CrLJ 1018 (Cal) (Hari Nath v. State) and 1995-2 Mad LW (Cri) 597 : 1995 CrLJ 3437) (Xavier v. Vincent Raj) and 1955 AIR(Mysore) 138 : 1955 CrLJ 1611) (Kariyappa v. Somanna) that Section 300, Cr.P.C. would not apply to this case, because the ingredients of the offence under section 160, I.P.C. are entirely and fundamentally different from the ingredients of the sections of offences for which the present private complaint was filed and that therefore, this reason is wrong.

6. Further more, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the FIR was not produced, it is clearly mentioned in the complaint as well as in the deposition about the filing of the F.I.R. with the police, in respect of the same transaction and that this aspect has not been cross-examined by the respondents/accused and that therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the respondents and as such, this reason is also not proper.

7. Mr. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a conjoint reading of sworn statement, private complaint and deposition made by the petitioner before the Court would make it clear that the case of the prosecution is consistent and there are no contradictions. On the basis of this submission, it is pointed out that the impugned order of discharge is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that a perusal of the earlier documents and the statement given by the witnesses before the Court would go to show that there is no consistent version which would go to the root of the matter and that therefore, this could be taken as a ground for discharge of the accused.

9. It is also submitted that under Section 245 Cr.P.C. if, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out, the Magistrate is