Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Manjhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 41563/2018
(Santosh Manjhi Vs. The State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated: 09.05.2019
Mr. Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Kush Singh, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
The applicant has filed I.A. No.18454/2018, an application for amendment in cause title. Respondent No.2 is the prosecutrix before the trial Court but, later on, applicant amended the cause title of the petition. The relief has already been exhausted. This application has rendered as infrucuous.
Heard on I.A. No.4690/2019, an application for taking documents on record.
On due consideration, I.A. No.4690/2019 is allowed. Documents are taken on record.
Also heard on I.A. No.17852/2018, an application for stay. Today, counsel for the applicant agreed to argue this matter finally, therefore, the proceeding of the trial Court is not required to be stayed. Hence, I.A. No.17852/2018 is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that on the basis of same incidence the prosecutrix lodged a report and mentioned the continuation of the offence since 16.03.2016 up to 16.12.2017 in Crime No.619/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Hoshangabad. Charge sheet in the matter has been filed before the trial Court after completion of investigation. Applicant has been convicted for the same offence.
Later on, Police Station Kotwali on the basis of same incidence lodged an FIR and registered crime No.842/2017, which is impugned in this petition and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed, but this fact of filing of charge sheet has not been mentioned in this petition nor filed a copy of the charge-sheet. It is only argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Documents filed along with this petition such as FIR of Crime No.842/2017 and statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant submits that this type of criminal proceedings is hit by principle of double jeopardy as contemplated under THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 41563/2018 (Santosh Manjhi Vs. The State of M.P.) Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and prays to quash the criminal proceeding registered in connection with crime No.842/2017 at Police Station Kotwali, District Hoshangabad.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties Section 300 of Cr.P.C. is relevant read as under :-
300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Sub-Section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-Section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under Sub-Section (1) of section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 41563/2018 (Santosh Manjhi Vs. The State of M.P.) the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code. Explanation.-The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.
On perusal of the Section 300 of Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that second trial is prohibited, registration of FIR and investigation is not prohibited.
The learned counsel for the applicant mainly contends that on the basis of crime No.619/2017 registered by the same prosecutrix against the applicant, chargesheet came to be filed before the trial Court and trial Court conducted the whole enquiry and convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Cr.P.C. The time of incidence was between 16.03.2016 to 16.12.2017 and again another crime No.842/2017 is registered against the applicant on the same incidence.
The applicant has nowhere challenged that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and for the same incidence, trial is going on against the applicant. When trial is not going on or pending against the applicant of the same incidence the provisions of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. are not attracted in this context.
Criminal proceeding such as crime No.842/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali cannot be quashed on the basis of principle of double jeopardy contemplated under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. But, if after completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed and trial is pending before any competent Court against the applicant for the same incidence in which he has already been convicted, he may raise an objection before the trial Court pertaining to the Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
On the basis of foregoing discussions, the prayer of quashing the Crime No.842/2017 and criminal proceedings emanating there to at Police THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 41563/2018 (Santosh Manjhi Vs. The State of M.P.) Station Kotwali is not liable to be dismissed by virtue of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.
In case, after completion of the investigation charge sheet filed before the trial Court and trial is pending then applicant is free to raise objection pertaining to Section 300 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.
With the aforesaid directions, this M.Cr.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.05.14 10:49:36 +05'30'