Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Dharm Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
1.Heard Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Bhushan Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Amroha in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2023 (Sanjeev Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 05.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Amroha in Case No. 2319 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 453 of 2017 (State Vs. Sanjeev) under Sections 304 , 323, 325 IPC , Police Station-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner, Dharm Pal Singh, who is the first informant, lodged an FIR on 15.12.2017 against respondent No. 2 Sanjeev bearing Case Crime No. 453 of 2017 under Sections 279, 304A IPC , P.S.-Amroha Dehat District-Jyotibhaphule Nagar alleging that on 29.11.2017 the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev came to his house and around 6:00 pm took away his son Kapil along with him on h
The doctrine of Double Jeopardy does not bar subsequent prosecution under distinct charges if the accused has not been convicted or acquitted in previous proceedings for the same offence.
The court ruled that distinct offences can arise from the same facts, and double jeopardy does not prohibit subsequent prosecutions unless the offences are identical in all respects.
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply when the offences for which the accused is being tried are different and distinct, even if they arise from the same set of facts.
(1) Retrial of offence – There exists clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation – Mere observation that investigating authorities may have taken lackadaisical ethical approach does not war....
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply when separate FIRs are registered for distinct offences occurring at different times and locations.
Retrial of individuals acquitted in prior proceedings violates the principle of double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C., which prohibits trying a person again for the same offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
