YOGANANDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.28918/2009 on the file of the 7th ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, D.P. Act) r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The main ground urged before this court is that, the petitioners were arraigned as accused in S.C. No.106/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304(B), 306 of IPC and as well as Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the D.P Act and these petitioners were tried by the Sessions Court in the said case, who were arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and after contest, the said case ended up in conviction of the accused persons (petitioners herein) in SC No.106/2010 and they were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304(B) of IPC and as well as Sections 4 & 6 of the D.P Act as under:

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that, a complaint was filed by the wife of petitioner No.1, by name Sumaleela during her lifetime in Crime No. 296/2009 and the same has been culminated in C.C. No.28918/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act. After filing of the said complaint against these petitioners, it appears the said lady committed suicide and in pursuance of the same, the father of the said Sumaleela has lodged a complaint against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the D.P. Act. The complaint lodged by the father has been culminated in SC No.106/2010, however the earlier complaint lodged by the deceased Sumaleela in Crime No.296/2009 also continued and culminated in C.C. 28918/2009. Therefore, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that, when the accused persons 1 to 3 (petitioners herein) were already convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the D.P. Act, there is no question of further trying them for the same offences in C.C. 28918/2009. He further submits that the allegations made in the complaint in C.C. 28918/2009 is same and similar as made in S.C. No.106/2010, for which allegations the accused persons were already tried and convicted. If the complaint in C.C. No.28918/2009 is allowed to be continued, it amounts to Double Jeopardy, for which there is a specific bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned counsel requests the court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.28918/2009.