Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order is against facts and law and liable to be set aside. Applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant and no case is made out against them. Applicants were residing separately from informant and her husband. It is further submitted that in the year 2011, the informant has lodged the first information report and she has also lodged a complaint under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act. In said complaint under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, the proceedings have already been concluded, wherein, the applicants were restrained from causing any domestic violence and the complainant was awarded maintenance and compensation. It was submitted that as the applicants have already faced trial under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, thus, the applicants cannot be prosecuted for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, on similar allegations. In this connection the applicants have filed an application to drop the proceedings but said application has been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024. It was pointed out that substantially the allegations in both the cases were similar and thus, in view of the provisions of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C., the prosecution of the applicants for aforesaid offences is bared by law and thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. In the complaint under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, the complainant has been merely granted maintenance. The proceedings of complaint under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act cannot be said prosecution of the applicants for substantially punishable offences and thus, the provisions of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. are not attracted.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. The main contention raised on behalf of applicants is that the informant has filed a case under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred as D.V. Act), wherein applicants have faced proceeding and the informant has been awarded maintenance and thus, the prosecution of applicants on similar allegations for offence under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section D.P. Act is barred by the provisions of section 300(1) CrPC.
8. Article 20(2) of Constitution of India enshrines the doctrine of double jeopardy and it provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. In other words no person shall be put twice in peril for the same offence. Similar provision has been made in section 300 (1) Cr.P.C., which is extracted hereunder :

10. The trial court has considered the matter in correct perspective and rejected the application of the applicants by a reasoned order. The impugned order does not call any interference by invoking jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC.

11. Application under section 482 CrPC is dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 this Court has failed to consider the provisions of Section 300(1) CrPC as well as position of law laid down in Case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 2022 (0) SCC 1268. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that applicants have already been tried and convicted in case no. 498 of 2011, under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act and thus, on the same allegations they can not be prosecuted for offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 this Court has failed to consider the position of law and thus, the order dated 05.09.2024 is liable to be recalled and the aforesaid application under section 482 CrPC be allowed.