A private complaint filed for the same offense after a police final report is filed, without a protest petition, cannot be taken cognizance of under Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. and constitutes double jeopardy if it targets the same accused.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 429 and 506(ii) of IPC.

2. The respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against ten accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A7, alleging that the respondent had entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the property admeasuring 80 cents from one Thanikachalam. While being so, one Dhanalakshmi @ Baby filed a suit for bare injunction before the District Munsif Court against the respondent in respect of the very same property. On 26.07.2010, at about 1.30 p.m., all the accused persons unauthorisedly trespassed into the respondent's property with deadly weapons and attacked five goats owned by the respondent in which four goats died and one was in serious condition. When it was questioned by the respondent, she was also threatened with dire consequences by the accused showing the deadly weapons.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the respondent, the Inspector of Police, Thoppur Police Station, registered an FIR in Crime No.481 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 429 and 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed as against four persons, and deleted the other accused persons. The same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.116 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri and it is pending for trial. It is the case of the respondent that the police, after receipt of bribe from the accused, had wantonly deleted six accused persons and filed the final report only against four accused. Thereafter, in the private complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance on 08.03.2011 in C.C.No.3 of 2011 as per Section 210(2) of Cr.P.C in respect of the very same occurrence for which the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C had already been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance under Section 210(2) of Cr.P.C. which deals with the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and a police investigation in respect of the same offence. It is further submitted that, after deletion of certain accused persons in the final report, the respondent did not take any steps to challenge the same by filing a protest petition and straight away filed a private complaint, that too as against all the accused persons. He further submitted that the cognizance of the private complaint is nothing but double jeopardy and no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Some of the accused persons are already facing trial in C.C.No.116 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 429 and 506(ii) of IPC. The present private complaint has been filed for the very same set of allegations against the very same accused persons. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the police, after receipt of bribe from the accused, had deleted some of the accused persons from the final report. Therefore, the second respondent was constrained to file a private complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. In fact, some of the accus