MURUGAIAYAN Vs. AYIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Mannargudi, dismissing the petition in Crl. M.P.No.993 of 1981 filed under Section 300 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

(2.) The revision petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.91 of 1981, which arose on a private complaint filed by the respondent. In respect of the incident which is the subject-matter of C.C.No.91 of 1981, on a report given by the respondent, the police have filed three separate cases in C.C.Nos.30, 31 and 32 of 1981 and C.C.Nos.30 and 32 of 1981 were tried separately and accused 1 and 2 were acquitted and only the case filed against the third accused in C.C.No.31 of 1981 is not yet disposed of and it is pending. In the meantime, the complainant who is aggrieved by the alleged improper investigation by the police, filed a private complaint in C.C.No.91 of 1981 in respect of the same subject-matter. The three accused in C.C.No.91 of 1981 filed a petition under Section 300 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 contending that the remedy of the complainant in C.C.No.91 of 1981 was to file a revision or appeal against the acquittal and not to file a second complaint and hence it is barred. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that C.C.No.31 of 1981 filed against the third accused was not disposed of. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, accused 1 to 3 filed this revision.

(3.) Section 300 (1) of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 reads as follows: A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while, such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.