Continuation of dual criminal proceedings based on identical allegations violates Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to abuse of court process and is unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioners have instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of the Complaint Case i.e. ICC Case No.16 of 2024, of the file of the Learned SDJM, Nayagarh.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 28.02.2024 at 7.50 P.M., the Opp. Party No.2 lodged an F.I.R. before Nayagarh P.S. with respect to an incident alleged to have taken place earlier that day at about 1:00 PM. The said report was registered as Nayagarh P.S. Case No. 65 of 2024 under Section 341, 294,323, 354, 379, 506, 34 of IPC.

(ii) Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet on 31.03.2024 against all the Petitioners for the aforesaid offences before the learned jurisdictional Court.

(iii) The Opp. Party No.2, who is the Informant in the case registered at Nayagarh P.S., despite being fully aware that investigation had already been set in motion pursuant to the F.I.R., instituted an I.C.C. case before the Court of the learned SDJM, Nayagarh on dated 29.02.2024 in respect of the self-same incident. The learned SDJM Court, Nayagarh proceeded with the said complaint and was pleased to take cognizance of offences under Section 341, 232, 294, 354, 379, 395, 506, 307 and 34 IPC against all the Petitioners.

(iv) It is further stated that dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned SDJM, Nayagarh in the complaint case, whereby cognizance was taken and a proceeding was allowed to continue parallel to the G.R. Case arising out of the police report, is unsustainable in law, being in clear contravention of the provision contained under Section 210 of Cr.P.C, 1973, and has thereby caused serious prejudice to the Petitioners.

(v) It is stated that the very institution of the complaint case, as well as the consequential order of cognizance passed therein, being otherwise illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law, are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice so as to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

(vi) Thereafter, cognizance of the offences was taken by the SDJM, Bhubaneswar, on 20.05.2022 in connection with Khandagiri P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 403 of 2016, under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.

II. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS

3. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.

4. In light of the forgoing facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners merits acceptance. The order of the cognizance passed by the learned SDJM, whereby a complaint proceeding has been permitted to continue parallel to the G.R. Case arising out of the police report, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is in clear contravention of the mandate embodied under Section 210 of Cr.P.C., 1973, which is intended to obviate simultaneous proceedings in respect of the self-same occurrence. Such deviation from the statutory scheme has resulted in grave prejudice to the Petitioners and amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.

5. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the complaint in question has been instituted by Opposite Party No.2 with oblique motives and malafide intent, solely with a view to wreak p