JAGDISH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Honble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has virtually prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998.

(2.) Sri K.N.Choubey, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on same allegation, two F.I.Rs were lodged as per the information given by one Ram Bilas Paswan, Block Development Officer, Mohania, District-Kaimur i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998 and Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that almost on similar allegation a case vide Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998 was registered. In the second case, i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998, the police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against co-accused, namely, Dharmu Ram, who was Panchayat Sewak at the relevant time showing him as an absconder. So far the petitioners case is concerned, the police had not find sufficient evidence for forwarding him to face trial. The final report was submitted by the police on 31.5.1999.Subsequently, by order dated 30.6.1999, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Dharmu Ram. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that in view of taking cognizance against accused Dharmu Ram by necessary implication, it is evident that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final form submitted by the police in respect of this petitioner. Of course, the order does speak the same in the clear term.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to column-4 of Annexure-1, i.e. F.I.R. of Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998. In Column-4, the name of the informant,i.e. Ram Bilas Paswan was mentioned. The learned counsel has also referred to Column-4 of Annexure-2, i.e. F.I.R. of Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998. In column-4 of the two F.I.Rs., name of Ram Bilas Paswan appears as the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon the Court that since in both cases informants are same, it can be assume that for the same allegation two F.I.Rs were lodged. Learned counsel further submits that since in one case i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998, the petitioner was exonerated by the police after completion of the investigation, which was also accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner may not be compelled to face prosecution in Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998. He submits that in Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998 there is same and similar allegation, as alleged in Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998. He further submits that in view of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Article-20(2) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner can not be twice prosecuted for the same offence. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel has virtually prayed that F.I.R. of Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998 be quashed and the petitioner may not be compelled to face prosecution in Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998.