The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent double jeopardy in criminal prosecutions.

ORDER

1. This is an application under Section 482 pressed into service by the petitioner to quash/set aside the criminal proceeding vide G.R. Case No. 1346 of 2013 arising out of Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No. 273 of 2013 allegedly for offences under Section 420 IPC pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal on the grounds inter alia that it is untenable and bad in law and absolutely necessary in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court.

2. From the record, it is revealed that an F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2013 by the complainant, a Branch Manager of Dhenkanal Evening Branch, Dhenkanal alleging therein that the petitioner, a partner of Shri Balaram Fabrics presented a cheque dated 23.08.2013 for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- drawn by M/S. K.M. Sugar Mills Pvt.Ltd. which was credited in the account of Shri Balaram Fabrics but on 24.08.2013, the Bank's Faizabad Branch intimated that said amount has been debited but the cheque in question was reported to be fraudulent one.

3. Accordingly, Town P.S. Case No. 273(14) dated 22.11.2013 was registered under Section 420 IPC which later culminated in G.R. Case No. 1346 of 2013. Said criminal proceeding is under attack on the ground of double jeopardy.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

5. It is contended that for the self same cause of action, a criminal prosecution has already been lunched against the petitioner by Kotwali Nagar PS, Faizabad and in that connection, a notice has been received by stating that a case under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC stands registered and therefore, that can be no prosecution twice as it would result in double jeopardy.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned court below without applying its judicial mind and by not considering the materials on record continued with the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1346 of 2015 and therefore, such initiation of a criminal prosecution for the same cause of action should not be permitted and hence, it should be quashed in exercise of Court's inherent power envisaged in Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is necessary in the interest of justice and so as to prevent the process of the Court being abused. While contending so, a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony -Vrs- State of Kerala & others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 is relied upon. In fact, in the decision (supra), the Supreme Court held and observed that there can be no second F.I.R. and a fresh investigation on receipt of every information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences and all such subsequent informations shall be covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C.

7. It is also contended that on behalf of the petitioner that the proceeding in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal is on the strength of alleged F.I.R. subsequent to the one lodged at Faizabad which is also in respect of the same transaction inter se Shri Balaram Fabrics and M/S. K.N.Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and hence, it is not maintainable in the eye of law and thus, liable to be quashed or else it would result in double prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the State strongly urged that the transaction may be the very same but the F.I.R. lodged at Dhenkanal is at the instance of the Manager of the Bank concerned and the cause of action is distinct and separate from that of the alleged incident for which the F.I.R. was lodged at Faizabad P.S. It is further contended that rightly a criminal prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner at Dhenkanal since the drawn cheque was presented at the SBI Branch, Dhenkanal for encashment. In other words, according to the State, it is not such a case, where the court is required to exercise inherent jurisdiction in order to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1369 of 2013 pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal.

9. By order dated 22.06.2017, this Court had directed learned counsel