Continuation of proceedings based on the same allegations in different jurisdictions constitutes double jeopardy, violating constitutional protections.

ORDER :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.105/2021 dated 19/03/2021, at Police Station Manak Chauk, Ratlam (M.P.) under Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D of IPC.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR has been lodged by the complainant Sub Inspector Ayyub Khan, alleging that on 18/03/2021, he came to know through social media that Rahul S/o Krishnagopal Kasera and his wife Megha have been apprehended by the Bhuj Police (Gujrat) at police station Bhuj, for possessing fake currency notes, and he came to know through his source that both these persons were the residents of Kasera Bazar, Ratlam (M.P.), hence, he proceeded to search their house, and found incriminating material including HP printer, a laptop, pen-drive etc. as also 14 currency notes of denomination Rs.2,000/- and 14 notes of denomination Rs.500/- which were fake. Thus, the case was registered against these two persons at Ratlam at Crime No. 105/2021, who were already arrested by the Bhuj police in connection with Crime No.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR is liable to be quashed only on the ground that the police at Bhuj had already registered the offence against the petitioners under the same provisions, and was investigating the matter in connection with possession of printing of fake currency notes. It is also submitted that Bhuj police had also asked Ratlam police for the certified copies of the seizer memos etc. as the seizer which was made by Ratlam police was essential in connection with the offence which was committed by the petitioners at Bhuj where they were found in possession of huge quantity of fake currency notes viz., 574 notes of 2,000/- denomination and 125 notes of Rs.500/- denomination.

4. Shri Rawat has also submitted that in Sessions Case No.83/2021, the Bhuj Court (5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj) has framed the charges against the petitioners on 24/08/2022, copies of the charges have also been filed on record, wherein charges under Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and 120-B of IPC have been framed against the petitioners, whereas in connection with the present case at Ratlam, the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam has also framed the charges on 12/06/2023 under Section 489-A, 489-C, 489-D read with Section 34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.31/2023. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners would be facing the trial on the same allegations in two different Courts, clearly making it a case of double jeopardy which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of his submissions, counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others reported sa (2020) 14 SCC 12 , Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and another reported as (2013) 6 SCC 384 (para 14) and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI and another reported as (2013) Cri. L.J. 2313 and Prateek Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported as 2024 Live Law (SC) 317. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR lodged in the present case be quashed and consequently, the subsequent criminal proceedings be also quashed.

6. Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, however, it is not denied that Bhuj police station had also asked for the certified copies of the seizure memos etc. from the concerned police station at Ratlam, and the articles seized from the house of the present petitioners have been kept in the Malkhana at Ratlam.

7. Heard learned couns