HARIGRIVACHARYA @ HARE RAM Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD RAI
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Harigrivacharya @ Hare Ram
Rajendra Prasad Rai
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) THE applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 20.10.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun as well as the proceedings of criminal case No. 129 of 2004, captioned as Rajendra Prasad Rai v. Laxmi Chand and others under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 342 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun. Respondent Rajendra Prasad Rai filed a complaint against three accused persons, the applicants being two of them, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 342 IPC. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. the applicants were summoned to face the trial in respect of the selfsame offences, vide order dated 20.10.2004. Aggrieved against the impugned dated 21.10.2004, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved.
(2.) THE principal contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that a first information report was lodged by the informant/respondent against four accused persons including the applicant No. 1, on 23.03.2001, "in PS Rishikesh, in respect of which first information report was registered as case crime No. 34 of 2001, under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The accused persons underwent trial and were exonerated of the charges levelled against them vide order dated 26.04.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh. The question is when the first information report relating to the same incident was lodged by the respondent against the accused persons, they (accused persons) faced the trial, and were acquitted of the allegations levelled against them, was the filing of a criminal complaint case in respect of the same offences justified? A perusal of judgment dated 26.04.2008 will indicate that the incident allegedly took place on 17.03.2001 between Rajendra Rai and Hare Ram Misrha along with others. A perusal of the present complaint will reveal that the complaint was filed in respect of the same incident, which took place on 17.03.2001, between the same parties. The place of incident (a well where the respondent Rajendra Rai was fetching water) was also the same. The description of altercation between the parties in the State case as well as in the present case are the same.
(3.) THIS Court should therefore, in the circumstances discussed above, interfere in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case in which such jurisdiction should be exercised, especially in view of Section 300 Cr.P.C. which says that a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and acquitted of such offence (s), while such acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence (s). This Court has therefore no option but to allow the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 20.10.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun as well as the proceedings of criminal case No. 129 of 2004, captioned as Rajendra Prasad Rai v. Laxmi Chand and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 342 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Dehradun are hereby quashed qua applicants.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.