Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asgar vs Navneet on 16 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-10231-2017
(ASGAR Vs NAVNEET)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-01-2018
Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Neetu Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Ms. Shahin Fatima, learned GA for respondent No.2/State. This is the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. requesting invocation of inherent powers of this Court and to quash the orders dated 28/04/2017 and 16/12/2016 passed by the learned JMFC, in criminal case No.2318/2015, wherein cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and charge has been framed for offence under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner, respectively.
Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts just necessary for disposal of this petition are that, the respondent/complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before JMFC, Burhanpur which was registered as criminal case No.239/11 and was decided on 04/12/2013, wherein the petitioner/accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It would be appropriate to mention here that no liberty has been granted to the respondent/complainant for filing of a fresh complaint.
Subsequently, the respondent/complainant filed a criminal complaint on 03/03/2015 before the learned JMFC, Burhanpur which has been registered as criminal case No.2318/15 for offence under Section 420 of IPC and vide order dated 16/12/2016, charge has been framed for offence under Section 420 of IPC.
The main contention of the petitioner in the present case is that, on the basis of the same cheque No.556826 for Rs.40,000/- dated 20/05/2010, criminal case No.239/11 was initiated by the complainant/respondent which resulted into acquittal, vide judgment dated 04/12/2013. On the basis of the same cheque, the complainant/respondent has instituted that criminal case No.2318/15 has been instituted by the respondent/complainant for offence under Section 420 of IPC. It is claimed that the petitioner cannot be tried for the same offence twice. Therefore, it is prayed to set aside the orders dated 16/12/2016 and 28/04/2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Burhnapur in criminal case No.2318/15.
Learned counsel representing the respondent has opposed the contentions, submitted that the earlier offence has been registered under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the present offence has been registered under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, the present complaint is maintainable.
On perusal of the documents, it is found that in the criminal case No.239/11 decided on 04/12/2013, the cheque in question was No.556826 (Ex.P/1) dated 20/05/2010 for Rs.40,000/- in which acquittal has been recorded vide judgment dated 04/12/2013 by the learned JMFC, Burhanpur. Again on the same cheque, criminal case No.2318/15 has been instituted and charge has been framed on 16/12/2016 by the learned JMFC, Burhanpur.
In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to benefit under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. For the same offence, he cannot be prosecuted twice in view of principle of double jeopardy.
Considering the above, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned dated 28/04/2017 and 16/12/2016 are set aside. The petitioner is discharged from offence under Section 420 of IPC. His bail bond is discharged.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE RS