JUDGMENT

R. N. BISWAL, J. — In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed to quash the entire criminal proceeding, instituted in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (P) at Uditnagar vide I.C.C. case No.226 of 2004.

2. The petitioner is one of the accused and the Opp.party No.1 is the complainant in the aforesaid complaint case. The facts as borne out from the complaint petition succinctly stated are that being influenced by the accused persons by their high profile media hype, the complainant became one of their customers under the scheme titled as “KARLO DUNIYA MUTHI MEIN” and made an application in the prescribed form to the accused company through their local dealer-accused No.5. He deposited Rs. 501/- in the shape of demand draft drawn in favour of the company in the month of August, 2003 and was provided with a mobile set bearing cell phone No.310611. It was assured by accused No.5 that the communi¬cation net work through the mobile set under the aforesaid scheme would work round the clock. But when the complainant operated the mobile set, he found the local mobile phone services so also out side services quite unsatisfactory. The mobile set also developed mechanical troubles frequently, for which the complainant re¬turned it to accused No.5 for repairing, time and again. Finally he returned the same to accused No.5 on 25th September 2003, which is lying with him since then. Despite it false and fabri¬cated telephone bills are being raised and sent to the complain¬ant on each month. On receipt of the fabricated bills, the com¬plainant raised objections before the accused persons many a times, but to no effect. Hence, he filed the complaint case to initiate a proceeding under Sections 199/406/409/418/420/427/468/477(A) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the accused persons and to punish them as per law.

3. On 19.4.2005 after going through the complaint petition, initial statement of the complainant and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the S.D.J.M. (P) at Uditnagar took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused persons including the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has filed this criminal Misc. Case No.1924/2005 to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

4. Mr. Gangadhar Rath, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that earlier the complainant-opposite party had filed I.C.C. Case No. 237 of 2003 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (P) at Uditnagar on the allegation that his mobile phone on being found defective was returned to the dealer and in spite of that bills were raised against him and on some other allegations for which cognizance was taken against the petitioner and some other accused persons for the offence under Sections 294/423/506/323, I.P.C. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner preferred CRL Misc. Case No. 963 of 2004 before this Court wherein the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner was quashed on 3.1.2005. During pendency of the Crl. Misc. case before this Court the complainant again filed this false and frivolous case with oblique purpose against the mandate of Article 20(2) of the Constitution. As such the entire proceeding in 1.C.C. Case No. 226 of 2004 should be quashed. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India envisages that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The words “prosecuted and punished” do not mean prose¬cuted or punished. Both the factors must co-exist. Since in the earlier complaint case the accused-petitioner was not punished the provision under Article 20(2) of the Constitution cannot be attracted to the present case. So I am not able to persuade myself to accept the submission of Sri Rath, the Senior Advocate in this regard.

Mr. Rath further submitted that accused-petitioner Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani previously was the Chairman of Reliance Infocom Limited. In the meantime a partition of the assets having b