Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jor Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2016
M.Cr.C. No.1576/2015 1
(Jor Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.)
30.11.2016.
Shri A.R.Shivhare, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani, learned Govt. Advocate for
respondent No.1/State.
Shri R.K.Bohare, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR and further proceedings of criminal case No.15963/2013 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.581/13 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC at police Station, Kampoo, Distt. Gwalior, on the ground that earlier respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered as Crime No.33/2012 at police Station, Mahila Thana Padav, Distt. Gwalior. It is submitted that after investigation, concerning police Station had submitted the charge-sheet against the husband and present petitioners No.1 and 2 and after trial all the accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 31.12.12 passed in Criminal Case No.4125/2012. Suppressing this fact, another FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 registering crime No.581/2013 at police Station, Kampoo, Distt. Gwalior.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this false report has been lodged by respondent No.2, whereas the fact is that a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2 on 21.5.2010 against respondent No.2 and the said case No.30- A/10 HMA is still pending in the Family Court at Gwalior and there is no contact between the petitioners, their son and respondent No.2 since 2010, therefore, there was no occasion M.Cr.C. No.1576/2015 2 for the petitioners to demand any dowry from respondent No.2 or to cause any harassment to her for want of dowry.
In M.Cr.C. No./1508/2014 (Ashish Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) this Court vide order dated 4.12.2014 had noted that the allegations in both the FIR being same, bar of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. will be attracted inasmuch as no person can be prosecuted more than once for the same offence and the law does not permit further prosecution of the accused on the same facts. Relying on the decision in the case of Rafiq Khan and another v. Smt. Jamila Bee and another, 1999 (1) JLJ 388, prayer was made for quashing of the second FIR registering crime No.581/2013. This Court after referring to the judgment in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another, (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 882, wherein the Apex Court explained the scope of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. in para 4 and 5 as under:-
4. It may be noticed that there is a difference between the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. Article 20(2) states:
"20.(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
On the other hand, Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. states:
"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 M.Cr.C. No.1576/2015 3 section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof"
5. Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that "no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once", Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts."
held that in terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Thus, Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The rule against double jeopardy is stated in the maxim "Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa". It is significant basic rule of criminal law that no man shall be put in jeopardy twice for one and the same offence. The rule provides foundation for the pleas of "autrefois acquite" and "autrefois convict". The manifestation of this rule is to be found contained in Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the law applicable, in my considered opinion when the petitioners in the case instituted on FIR Crime No.33/12 have been tried for the offence under Sections 498-A and 506/34 of IPC and acquitted in Criminal Case No.4125/12 vide judgment dated 31.12.12 and the said judgment of acquittal became final and still remained in force, in such state of affairs on the same set of facts the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the same offence in view of Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.
Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and is M.Cr.C. No.1576/2015 4 allowed accordingly and the FIR and further proceedings of Criminal Case No.15963/2013 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.581/2013 registered for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC at police Station, Kampoo, Distt. Gwalior, are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-