SRINIVASAN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIRUVENNAINALLUR VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted that the Petitioners have filed the instant petition to quash the proceeding in P.R.C.No.20 of 2007 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 Ulundhurpet, Villupuram District. In the said case a First Information Report was registered based on the complaint of one Jeyaraman for the offence under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC r/w 3(i) (x) of the SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that as far as the registration of the instant case is an abuse the process of law. Since for the very same alleged occurrence the wife of the Defacto complainant already lodged a complaint before the 1st Respondent on 17.01.2017 itself which was registered as Crime No.32 of 2007. The allegations leveled in the said complaint that she was assaulted by the accused mentioned therein and her husband, the 2nd Respondent herein was also assaulted by the 3rd Respondent. However, the 3rd Respondent herein lodged another complaint on 26.01.2007 before the 1st Respondent with some changes that is some developed version from the complaint given by his wife.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioners has also pointed out that the place of occurrence shown in Crime Nos.32 of 2007 and 49 of 2007 are for the same occurrence. However, with further developments of the complaint given by the wife of 3rd Respondent, he also gave a complaint belatedly for the very same occurrence as mentioned in Crime No.49 of 2007. So, the impugned final report is against law and there cannot be two complaints for one occurrence and such an event, the subsequent First Information Report and the continuous proceedings including the charge sheet is liable to be quashed as the same would be a double jeopardy. If at all the 3rd Respondent herein had any grievance, he ought to have taken legal steps in the manner known to law that too in the complaint given by his wife. Further the learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that absolutely there is no reference in the complaint in Crime No.49 of 2007 about the previous complaint lodged by the wife of the 3rd Respondent. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the place of occurrence shown in Crime No. 32 of 2007 and 49 of 2007 are one and the same. Apart from that the 3rd respondent herein has not whispered anything about the complaint given by his wife. Moreover, he has developed the allegations made in his complaint by invoking the provisions of SC/ST Act, whereas when the complaint given by the wife of the 3rd respondent in Crime No. 32 of 2007 is perused, there is absolutely no allegation to attract the offence of SC/ST Act. So, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case in Crime No. 49 of 2007 which is culminated into PRC No.20 of 2007 is liable to be quashed.