MOKKARAJ Vs. PANDIYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a classic case in which, the proposed Accused are sought to be prosecuted, two times for the same offence otherwise called, double jeopardised which is prohibited by the Constitution of India under Article 20(2). The case of the de facto Complainant is that while drawing drinking water from a public tap, the petitioners assaulted and caused injury to the de facto Complainant, resulting in giving a Complaint to the Police against the Petitioners which was registered in Crime No. 9 of 2009 under Sections 342, 324, 323 & 506(ii), IPC r/w Section 34, I.P.C. The date of occurrence is 23.1.2009. After the investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against the Petitioners 1 to 4 and thereafter, at the instance of the Respondent, a Petition was filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C., by which, the Petitioners 5 & 6 were added as A5 & A6. The said case is pending in C.C. No. 135 of 2009.

(2.) When things stand so, subsequently, a Private Complaint was filed by the Respondent against the Petitioners which was taken on file by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 105 of 2010 for the alleged offences said to have been committed by the Petitioners on the same day namely on 23.1.2009. As the de facto Complainant initiated proceedings through the Private Complaint as well as by Police Complaint for the same occurrence, the Petitioners are before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent in the Private Complaint.

(3.) Mr. R. Maheswaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that there cannot be any double jeopardy for the same offence which is prohibited as per the Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The proceedings are nothing but an abuse of process of law and he relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 2 CTC 107