SADHAN CHANDRA BAR Vs. NEPAL KULSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The instant Criminal Revisional application under x is at the instance of the accused-petitioner Shri Sadhan Chandra Bar and this has been filed with a prayer for quashing the G.R. Case No. 208 of 1999 arising out of Chandrakona P.S. Case No. 48 of 1999 dated 26.6.99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC, now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal, Midnapore. The instant Criminal Revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the accused-petitioner Shri Sadhan Chandra Bar and this has been filed with a prayer for quashing the arising out of Chandrakona P.S. Case No. 48 of 1999 dated 26.6.99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC, now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal, Midnapore.

(2.) The case of the accused-petitioner was in brief that O.P. No. 1 Nepal Kulsi filed a petition of complain the before the learned SDJM, Ghatal on 9.6.94 alleging inter alia that on the previous night some criminals entered his house by breaking open the window of the house and after committing theft of various articles including golden ornaments they fled away. It was only on the following morning that O.P. No.1 came to know of the same and lodged the complaint. According to O.P. No.1, accused No.1 Bablu Patra and accused No. 2 Bimal Singh committed the said theft from his house and accused No. 3 being the present petitioner and accused No.4 Tarit Singh received some of the said stolen goods from accused Nos.1 and 2. Although the O.P. No.1 lodged a complaint in 1994 with Chandrakona P.S. in the matter but with no result. Accordingly O.P. No.1 lodged a second complaint with Chandrakona P.S. on the selfsame incident but again without success. Thereafter O.P. No.1 filed another complaint on the selfsame incident with Chandrakona P.S. and this time Chandrakona P.S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26.6.99 under sections 448/457/380/411 IPC was started. Ultimtely this case rise to G.R. Case No. 208/99 now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal. According to the petitioner there could not be any second or third complaint on the selfsame incident between the selfsame parties and accordingly the third case which was now pending before the learned SDJM, Ghatal being G.R. Case No. 208/99 as arose out of Chandrakona P.S. Case No. 48/99 dated 26.6.99 was liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the State in the matter at length.