Point of law: if a person has been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and has been either convicted or acquitted of the offence, he/she may not be tried, once again, for the same offence or for another offence or the same set of facts so long as his/her conviction or acquittal remains in force, the exception to this general principle being that with the consent of the State Government, the acquitted or convicted person concerned may be tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been framed against him at the former trial.

ORDER :

G. Sri Devi, J.

1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 316 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial District, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above C.C., which was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The facts which led to filing of the present Criminal Petition are as under:-

Basing on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent herein, the Police, Ramakrishnapur, registered a case in Crime No. 124 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners/accused. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage of the 3rd respondent with the 1st petitioner was performed on 21.03.2003 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 3rd respondent paid cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- and also entrusted all other customary articles to the petitioners and that the couple lived happily for three months. Thereafter, the petitioners started harassing the 3rd respondent both mentally and physically to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- and motor cycle stating that before the marriage, some others offered dowry of Rs. 4,50,000/- to A-1. The 1st petitioner/A-1 used to beat the 3rd respondent every day and he also attempted to kill her by putting the pillow over her mouth and that the 3rd respondent informed the same to her in-laws, but they did not support her instead they instigated the 1st petitioner. In the year 2003, the 3rd respondent blessed with one female child and in the year 2004, the petitioners driven out the 3rd respondent from their house and as such she has been residing with her parents. A panchayat was also held before the elders and in the said panchayat, the petitioners admitted their guilt and promised that they will not harass the 3rd respondent in future and also executed a bond paper on 18.09.2005 and took her to their house, but they did not change their attitude and continued their harassment. It is also stated in the complaint that when the father of the 3rd respondent came to their house, the petitioners assaulted him with iron rod and also abused him in filthy language. It is further stated that after giving the birth of second female child, the petitioners were again started harassing the 3rd respondent both mentally and physically to bring additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and driven out her from their house. After conducting investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, which was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 316 of 2012.

3. Heard and perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that on earlier occasion in the year 2008 the 3rd respondent submitted a written complaint before the Police, Sulthanabad Police Station with the same set of allegations against the petitioners herein, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 24 of 2008 and after completing the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet in the said crime, which was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 62 of 2008. After a full pledged trial, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad, acquitted the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He further submits that the allegations in both the cases are one and the same and in the subsequent complaint, the 3rd respondent had intentionally suppressed about the earlier case and also the acquittal of the petitioners, which amounts to abuse of process of law. He also submits that as there is a judgment of acquittal of the petitioners in the earlier case filed by the 3rd respondent, subsequent proceedings for the same set of allegations and offences on a separate trial, is contrary to the protection afforded under Section 300 of Cr.