GABRU SHAH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Gone through the niceties of the matter. A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent in the Court of ACJM, Jaitaran in the year 2011 revealing that exactly same facts have been mentioned in the second complaint, based upon which the order of cognizance was taken. Even in para 7 of the second complaint, the facts have been narrated regarding lodging of the FIR for offence under Ss. 498A and 406 IPC and filing of the charge-sheet against the accused Sheru Shah. Perhaps it might be the grief of the complainant that some of the accused persons had been left out in previous FIR and which persuaded her to lodge a second complaint.

(2.) In my firm view, the said act is not permissible under the law. The better course available with the complainant was to move an application before the learned Magistrate under Sec. 190 Cr.P.C. in the previous FIR No. 130/2011 to implead the other persons also as accused who have been left out by the investigating agency. The second complaint based on the same facts is barred by law as it is enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surata Choudhary @ Santosh Choudhary Vs. The State of Assam, SLP (Crl.) No. 1242/2021, decided on 5/11/2024.

(3.) Thus, the petition is hereby allowed. The order taking cognizance dtd. 1/3/2012, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran in Criminal Original Case No. 84/11 as well as the order dtd. 8/5/2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran in Revision Petition No. 24/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the charges levelled in the complaint.