PRAMOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities)/Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Special Criminal Case No.H-30/2016, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 228 CrPC for discharging him of the offence levelled against him.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is facing trial under Section 294, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989'). The applicant's application filed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for discharging him of the offence has been rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident took place on 20.09.2016 at about 11.00 am, and out of the same incident two FIRs have been registered against the applicant, which is not permissible in law and the trial Court has completely ignored this significant aspect of the matter. He further submits that Chandrahas Chandrakar has lodged the 1st FIR and his statement was recorded but he did not disclose the fact of occurrence of any other offence and subsequently the written report has been lodged, which itself shows the intention of the complainant. It is settled position of law that the expression 'same transaction' from its very nature is incapable of exact definition. He also submits that where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different person, there is no commonality and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from different circumstances, it will not be possible for the Court to take a view that they form part of the same transaction and therefore, there could be a common FIR or subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered or there could be common trial. It is next submitted that accusation made in the FIR do not constitute any offence under the Act 1989 as the complaint is false or stems out of malafides to blackmail or to wreck some personal vengeance for settling and scoring personal vendetta or by way of some counter blast or found to be misused of judicial process. He also submits that it is the duty of the court to examine and judicially scrutinize whether on its facts, the FIR and challan do constitute any offence under the Act. The applicant is facing two criminal trial for the same incident, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amitbhai Anichandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 1 (2013) 6 SCC 348.