K LAXMA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kesara Police Station, Kushaiguda Circle, Ranga Reddy District, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein on 7.10.2001, filed a petty case charge sheet against petitioners 1 and 4 herein for the offence under Section 323 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, which was registered as S.T.C. No.305 of 2001. On 9.10.2001 Petitioners 1 and 2 herein admitted the offence and pleaded guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and they were convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine, of Rs.250/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each.

(2.) The 2nd respondent herein has presented another complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. against petitioners 1 to 6 herein in respect of the same incident that occurred on 6.10.2001, which is the subject matter of S.T.C. No.305 of 2001. On 22.11.2001 the Judicial First Class Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 324, 354 and 447 IPC by looking into the contents of the complaint without recording the sworn statement of the complainant, being the 2nd respondent herein, and registered the complaint as C.C.No.912 of 2001 and ordered issuance of process by R.P. and T.C. The petitioners herein, who are accused in the said private complaint, seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.912 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the Magistrate and as such issuance of process against petitioners/accused is bad. It is also contended that no sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and hence prima facie there was no material to take cognizance of the offences. It is further contended that at the earlier instance when the police have filed a petty case charge sheet against petitioners 1 and 4 herein, which was registered as S.T.C. No.305 of 2001, on their pleading guilty, they were convicted and sentenced in respect of the same incident and therefore, the principle of autre fois convict apply. The principles of double jeopardy have to be applied. Yet another contention also has been raised that the offence under Section 354 IPC alleged is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the Magistrate has to record the sworn statement of the complainant and other witnesses on oath before taking cognizance of the offence under Section 354 IPC. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ramu and others v. State of A. P. and another, 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 680 (A.P.), and contends that the second complaint in regard to the same incident impleading some more accused complaining some more offences is not maintainable.