RAMESH CHANDRA S/O BHAGWAN LAL BY CASTE LOHAR AGE 32 YRS. R/O DUDHESHWAR MAHADEV ROAD, IN FRONT OF JUPITER ROAD, PATRAWALI CHALI, P.S. MADHAVPURA, AHEMDABAD (GUJARAT) Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioners have laid this misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C., to assail impugned order dated 13.01.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera (for short, 'learned revisional Court') as well as order dated 27.06.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nimbahera (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The petitioners have also craved for quashing entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 478/2012 pending before learned trial Court.

(2.) Bare necessary facts are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for offence under Sections 494, 114, 109 and 120-B before learned trial Court. Learned trial Court, after recording statements of the complainant under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C., made necessary inquiry in the matter and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sec. 494 and Sec. 109 IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order petitioners preferred revision petition before the learned revisional Court and learned revisional Court by its order dated 13.01.2015 upheld the order of cognizance passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioner No.1 was prosecuted by the complainant wherein his parents were also arrayed as accused-persons for offence under Sec. 498-A and 494 Penal Code and on completion of trial learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh by its verdict, on 06.02.2012 acquitted the petitioner and other accused-persons for the aforesaid offence. He, therefore, submits that second prosecution of the first petitioner for the same offence is a glaring example of abuse of process of the Court and therefore impugned order and the entire proceedings are liable to be annulled. Learned counsel further submits that the verdict of Court dated 06.02.2012 has attained finality and therefore second prosecution of the petitioner for the same offence is per se oppressive and prejudicial to his interest but this important aspect has been completely eschewed by both the Courts below. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that if the impugned orders are allowed to sustain and the proceedings are continued in the matter, the same would result in miscarriage of justice.