MAHADEO SUKHDEO UDAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate, Partur dated 3rd June, 2006, below Exhibit - 29 in R.C.C. No.59 of 2002, and the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 5th March, 2007, in Criminal Revision Petition No.88 of 2006, confirming thereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate below Exhibit - 29 as aforesaid, the original Accused preferred this criminal application.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the Applicants / original Accused submits that in respect of the same incident with the same facts and allegations, the second complaint is not maintainable when the first complaint came to be withdrawn and the Applicants / Accused came to be discharged by the Magistrate. The learned counsel submits that the Court below has not considered that the first complaint was withdrawn on the ground that the matter is settled between the parties out of the Court and the Applicants / Accused came to be discharged by the Magistrate. The learned counsel submits that the said discharge has an effect of acquittal and therefore, there is a bar of second complaint as provided under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.