IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of double jeopardy prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence and same set of facts after being acquitted in a previous proceeding.

JUDGMENT

1. Criminal Petition, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 94 of 2016 on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar (Presently IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar) against the petitioner/A1, for the offences under Ss. 420, 465, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC').

2. Respondent No.2 filed private complaint on 12/5/2015 alleging that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plots bearing Nos.237, 238, 254, 255 and 256 situated in Sy. Nos.36 part of Pocharam Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property') having purchased the same from T. Venkata Lakshmi on 16/5/2005 and registered before the Sub Registrar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Later it was found that someone else was claiming the ownership of some of the plots. After verification, he came to know that the accused herein were falsely claiming the plots on the basis of fabricated documents.

3. Earlier to filing the private complaint, the defacto complainant/respondent No.2/Dr.David Solomen deposed before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad as P.W.3 in C.C. No.416 of 2014 and the same facts are stated in complaint. One month later i.e., on 12/5/2015 the complaint was filed reiterating the same facts about the plots which he has purchased. He further stated that the said plots were mortgaged with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Ameerpet. He came to know that 1988-89 itself, all the plots were sold to different people.

4. The complaint which was filed on 12/5/2015 was referred by the Magistrate for the purpose of investigation and charge sheet was filed by the police on 25/2/2016. On 31/7/2018, learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C. No.416 of 2014, which was tried against this petitioner and another wherein the respondent No.2 deposed as P.W.3 regarding cheating committed with respect to the plots purchased by him, ended in acquittal.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that he was already tried for the very same offences alleged in the present case, vide C.C. No.416 of 2014 in which case petitioner was acquitted.

6. Respondent No.2 deposed about the alleged cheating committed regarding the plots purchased by him and the very same grievance/allegation is now the subject matter of present case vide C.C. No.94 of 2016.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that though he deposed in C.C. No.416 of 2014 as P.W.3 he was not the complainant in the said case. Further, the plots were in fact again registered though they were sold in the year 1988-89 itself. He further submits that since the acquittal was recorded for the reason that Investigating Officer did not conduct investigation in the proper manner and for deficiency in investigation, the acquittal has no bearing and proceedings has to go on in the present C.C. No.94 of 2016.

8. The allegation made by respondent No.2 in C.C. No.416 of 2014 and the allegation made in the present complaint is one and the same which is not disputed. In the event of being aggrieved by the acquittal in C.C. No.416 of 2014 where respondent No.2 had deposed regarding the cheating committed, the options were left open to questioning the said acquittal. Charges were framed for the very same plot transactions in which the complainant therein and respondent No.3 herein were victims. Respondent No.2 cannot file a separate complaint on the very same allegations which are leveled in C.C. No.416 of 2014 and seek criminal proceedings to be continued in the present Case. Though there are more than one victim regarding the transactions done by petitioner, every victim cannot file separate complaint, after deposing in the first complaint as victim and when charge was already framed regarding the very same transactions.

9. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "T.P.Gopala Krishna Vs.