YOGENDRA SHAH Vs. ROHITASH KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding being CS-0049413 of 2015 pending before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta by filing this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) On December 20, 2014 the opposite party filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore which was registered as C. Case No. 16016 of 2014. The opposite party was examined as complainant in the said case under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and learned Magistrate referred the case to the Officer-in-Charge of Bhawanipore Police Station for making an investigation under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said case was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore. Without pursuing the said petition of complaint, the opposite party filed another petition of complaint before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on December 4, 2015. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and transferred the record to the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta. On December 29, 2015 learned Metropolitan Magistrate examined the opposite party and his witnesses under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and issued process against the accused persons on the allegation of committing offence under Sections 420/406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Amartya Ghose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the offences arising out of the contents of first petition of complaint are same in the second petition of complaint. By referring to the contents of both petitions of complaint, Mr. Ghose further submits that the facts narrated in the first petition of complaint are the same which are narrated in the second petition of complaint. The specific submission of Mr. Ghose is that the opposite party cannot be allowed to continue with the second petition of complaint for the same offences for which the first petition of complaint is still pending for adjudication.