Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 62/2011 registered against them at P.S. Muklawa, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.
(2.) Assailing the impugned F.I.R., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in relation to the very same allegations which are the subject matter of the present F.I.R., the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar wherein the petitioners are facing prosecution. Thus, counsel for the petitioners submits that dual prosecution of the petitioners for the very same allegations and offences is not permissible as being hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala, reported in 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 633 and prays that the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the prayer made by way of the present misc. petition but are not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioners are facing trial before the concerned Court at Punjab for the very same allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2/complainant herself.;