RAM NIWAS YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Niwas Yadav has petitioned under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the complaint dated May 19, 1984 (Annexure P.1) made against him by Jaipal Singh, respondent No. 2 as also the order dated June 7, 1984, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rewari, Summoning the petitioner and the subsequent order dated August 1, 1984, of the Magistrate issuing bailable warrant against him.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case are that Jaipal Singh, respondent No. 2, filed a complaint under section 107 of the Code against the petitioner, dated May 19,1984 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rewari. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner wanted to hit his car against the car of respondent No. 2 to cause him physical injury and monitory loss but due to the tactful driving of the driver of respondent No. 2 the latter was saved. It was further alleged that after this incident the petitioners have threatened respondent No. 2 on various occasion with dire consequences. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on taking cognizance of the complaint, passed the following order :-

(3.) IT is admitted between the parties that respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint under section 506, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid incident alleged to have taken place on May 3, 1984. In other words respondent No. 2 has not only initiated security proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the above referred incident but has also filed a separate complaint under section 506, Indian Penal Code. It was held in Aluva Balaihgari Chandra Reddy v. The Revenue Inspector Rajampet and another, 1980 CRI, L.J. 1169, by the Andhra Preadehs High Court, that on general principles of justice it may not be expedient to launch for same act one police investigation for projection in a regular criminal court to secure punishment and another proceedings for security in another court at one and the same time. It was observed that although such a cause does not strictly offend the rule of prohibition against double jeopardy, still, if a single act which is covered under provision of the Indian Penal Code is under investigation with regard to its truth it is but proper that the investigation is allowed to be completed and a trial of the same is allowed to take place so that, if the allegation is true and it causes an apprehension of future breach of public peace and tranquility, the court convicting, the offender may apply section 106 of the Code and take the necessary bond for security to keep the peace. Subscribing to this view I of am the opinion that the simultaneous launching of security proceedings as well as a complaint under section 506, Indian Penal Code, by respondent No. 2 for a solitary act is not proper. Thus, so far as the incident dated May 3, 1984 is concerned it is not proper to proceed against the petitioner under section 107 of the Code. Respondent No. 2 has further alleged in his complaint (Annexure P.1) that after the aforesaid incident the petitioner on various occasions had offered threats to his life. The Magistrate can take these allegations into consideration while passing an appropriate order under section 111 of the Code.