KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 18769-M of 2000 filed by Kuldeep Singh and his brother Devinder Kumar alias Devinder Singh and Crl. Misc. No. 35402-M of 2000, filed by Bhajan Singh and others. Both these petitions are arising out of the order dated 10.8.1998, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, whereby in a private complaint filed by respondent No. 2, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 379, 148/149, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. In these petitions, the prayer is for quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order.

(2.) THE only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the complainant, accepted the cancellation report submitted by the police in case FIR No. 12 dated 27.1.1994 under Sections 382/149 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt, on the complaint of Nachhatar Singh, driver of respondent No. 2, then the Judicial Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence on the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 on similar allegations. Learned counsel submits that taking cognizance on such a complaint and summoning the petitioners as accused will be an abuse of process of law and will amount to double jeopardy. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Mahant Amar Dass v. State of Punjab and another, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 971.

(3.) THE facts in this case are not disputed. Earlier, on a complaint made by driver of respondent No. 2, FIR No. 12 dated 27.1.1994 under Sections 382/149 IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act, was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. After the investigation, the allegations levelled in the FIR were found to be false and the police submitted cancellation report to the Court, which was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, vide order dated 7.2.1994, after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The complainant did not challenge the said order. However, thereafter, he filed the instant complaint on the same allegations. After preliminary evidence, led by respondent No. 2-complainant, the petitioners have been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate to face trial under Sections 379/148/149, 120-B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.