SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel of both sides. Petitioners being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with an order dated 19.12.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case No. 747(c) of 2008 summoning the Petitioner to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the I.P.C. have invoked extraordinary power to this Court so provided under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, one Rupa who was married with one of the Petitioner, namely, Sanjay Kumar Verma alias Sanjay Verma met with an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage at Gurudwara Road, Sheopuri, District-Sheopuri (MP.) for which on the statement of Sanjay Kumar Verma alias Sanjay Verma U.D. Case No. 58/2006 was registered which was subsequently converted into a substantial case after having appearance of OP. No. 2 bearing Sheopuri P.S. Case No. 38/2008 under Sections 304B, 498A, 34 of the I.P.C. where under cognizance was also taken after submission of charge-sheet and accordingly, Petitioners were put on trial and were acquitted vide judgment dated 4.8.2008 from the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopuri delivered in connection with S. Tr. No. 147/2008. While the aforesaid matter was pending, OP. No. 2 filed Complaint Petition No. 1257/2006 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif which was sent to the local police for registration and investigation as provided under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which led initiation of Bihar P.S. Case No. 350/ 2006 under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 of the I.P.C, wherein after concluding investigation final report was submitted. However, as protest petition was already pending consequent thereupon after having the final report accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the matter proceeded treating the protest petition as complaint petition, wherein after concluding inquiry as provided under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , by the order impugned Petitioners have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 34 of the I.P.C. which has caused grievance to the Petitioner to file instant petition. It is worth mention to note that OP. No. 2 failed to place information before either of the court regarding pendency of case.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the order of cognizance and summoning of Petitioner is bad in law and so the order impugned cannot be found to be tenable in the eye of law. To buttress his submission, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention towards Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that once Petitioners have already tried for the same allegation and acquitted, then under such situation he cannot be prosecuted and tried in subsequent proceeding for the same cause which is also found to be contrary to Sub-clause 2 of Article 20 of the Constitution. To support his plea also relied upon decision Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateshwara Rao and Anr., 2011 1 PLJR(SC) 159