MANOJ Vs. SAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal of an application, filed by this petitioner under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, in Criminal Case No. 1218/2000, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Jabalpur, this petitioner has challenged not only the aforesaid order dated 19-2-2001, but also seeks quashment of aforesaid criminal case, after being unsuccessful in his Crl. Rev. No. 307/2001, which stood disposed of by IInd A.S.J. Jabalpur, on 7-5-2002.

(2.) As per this petitioner, on a report dated 20-9-1998, lodged by respondent against this petitioner, Crime No. 162/98, was registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A/494/506 of the IPC and under S. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in respect of which the police submitted expunge-ment report, bearing No. 13/6-12-98. Thereafter, the respondent, the wife of this petitioner filed a private complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C. Jabalpur, which is registered as Complaint Case No. 472/99. On report being called from concerning Police Station Katangi, it is informed that in respect of the allegations levelled in her first information report dated 20th Sept. 1998, the respondent has filed the private complaint against this petitioner, with exaggerated facts, which is registered as Complaint Case No. 1218/2000. On being summoned by the Court of JMFC, this petitioner filed an application under sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the Code, which stood disallowed on 19-2-2001. The petitioner's challenge to aforesaid order in Crl. Rev. No. 360/2001, also resulted in rejection by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, on 7-5-2002, and hence the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking exercise of inherent powers for quashment of the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint No. 1218/2000.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the submission of expungement report by the concerning police station Katangi, and its acceptance, amount to discharge of the petitioner and hence a second criminal case, on the same set of facts is barred, as per principle of autrefois acquit. In support of this argument, Shri P.R. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the Court's attention to Chittaranjan Saha v. State, reported in AIR 1960 Patna 168 : 1960 Cri LJ 503, and Mahomed Safi v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1966 SC 69 : (1966 Cri LJ 75).