- (1.) Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.347 dated 19.07.2003 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' in short) at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including order dated 26.09.2005 (Annexure P-5), chargesheet dated 05.10.2005 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure P-7).
(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complainant-respondent No.2 Bakhshish Singh had earlier filed private complaint (Annexure P-1) against the petitioners and others. When the trial in the said complaint was near conclusion, the FIR in question was lodged by respondent No.2 on similar set of allegations. In civil litigation, the power of attorney dated 22.06.1992 registered on 17.07.1992 by respondent No.2 in favour of Kimat Singh was held to be a genuine document.
(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kuljit Singh vs. Jasbir Singh, 2002 4 RCR(Cri) 707 wherein it was held as under:- "This Section embodies the ancient maxim "nemo debet bis vexani pro eadem causa" ( no person should be twice disturbed for the same cause). One of the principle of this Section is that where an accused can be held at one trial for several o ences and has not been so tried for all the offences but only for a few he should not be put again in jeopardy for the offences for which he could have been tried at the time but had not been tried. From the bare reading of the aforesaid Section, it is clear that if a person, who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction, for an offence and he has been convicted or acquitted for such an offence, shall not be tried again for the same offence or for any other offences, for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 221(1) of the Code or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. Sub-section (1) of Section 300 of the Code consists of two limbs. The first limb deals with the case of a person, who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence. Such person shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence while such conviction of acquittal remains in force. The second limb of the sub-section deals with the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub section (1) of Section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section(2) thereof. The case of the petitioner is covered under second limb of this sub-section. Though in the police case, the petitioner and his parents were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/304-B/34 IPC and they were not charged for offences punishable under Sections 406/498-A IPC, but on the basis of the facts alleged in the FIR, the challan and the evidence came before the Court during the trial, they could have been charged under these offences in exercise of power given under Section 221 (1) of the Code. But neither the complainant/prosecution nor the Court called upon the petitioner and his parents to face trial for offences under Sections 406/498-A IPC though the allegations constituting these offences were very much available. The petitioner has been convicted and his parents have been acquitted in the earlier trial vide judgment dated August 6,1998. In view of this fact, the petitioner and his parents cannot be tried again on the basis of the present complaint. This view of mine is supported by a decision of this Court Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1985 2 RCR(Cri) 152where an accused tried and acquitted of offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act then such accused could not be retried for offences under Sections 147/158/224/225 IPC. Thus, in view of Section 300 (1) of the Code, the present complaint filed by respondent No.1, brother of the deceased, is liable to be quashed, as the petitioner and his parents cannot be tried again for an o ence under Sections 406/498-A IPC on the allegations made therein.";