MAHUA PATRA ALIAS MITHU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2010-4-15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 07,2010

MAHUA PATRA @ MITHU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Pursuant to an order passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code by the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, on a complaint made to the Court by the opposite party no. 2 herein, a First Information Report relating to offences punishable under Sections 302/451/452/380/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Uluberia Police Station against the present petitioner and 16 others.
(2.) After completion of investigation, when police filed final report praying for discharge of the accused from the case, the opposite party no. 2 herein filed a Naraji petition, whereupon the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the final report and directed re-investigation of the case. After re-investigation, police again submitted final report, but the Learned Magistrate instead of accepting such final report took cognizance on Naraji petition filed by the defacto-complainant. Thereafter, the case was transferred for trial to the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Uluberia. By an order dated April 3, 2007, the Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on default. Subsequently, on January 30, 2010, the opposite party no. 2 filed a fresh complaint on the self-same allegations and against the self-same accused persons and on such complaint a criminal proceeding being the Complaint Case No. 165 (C) of 2007 was registered and the Learned Court below after taking cognizance directed issuance of process against the present petitioner and 16 others under Sections 302/451/452/380/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the aforesaid complaint case, now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Amta, on the sole ground that no second complaint on the same facts is legally maintainable unless there is a very exceptional circumstance.
(3.) Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and considered the following case laws cited by him. (i) Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. Fazru, reported in JT 2010 (1) SC 468, (ii) Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 647 and (iii) Hira Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2380.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.