- (1.) Both these applications have been heard together since they have been filed by the accused father and son with identical parade, to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 571 of 2004, later registered as Garhwa P.S. Case No. 261 of 2004, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 385, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners and the case is presently pending trial vide sessions trial No. 201 of 2005 in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa.
(2.) Common grounds taken in both the applications are that the proceeding before the Court below is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the same offence more than once as is being purportedly done in the present case.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners explains that on the same set of allegations including the cause of action, date and time of occurrence, a First Information Report was lodged on 19.9.2004 at Chhapra Town Police Station (Bihar) which was registered as Chhapra Town Police Station Case No.206 of 2004 and after conclusion of the investigation, police had submitted charge-sheet on the basis of the which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra against the petitioners. Subsequently, the informant of the aforesaid case filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa on the same allegations. The complaint petition was forwarded to the police for registering the case and for investigation and accordingly, the same was registered as Garhwa P.S. Case No. 261 of 2004. On submission of charge-sheet, cognizance for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 385, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which is presently pending trial in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa vide sessions trial No. 201 of 2005. Learned counsel explains that since the place of occurrence, even according to the entire allegations in the FIR relating to the death of the petitioner's wife, is at Chhapra, the Court at Garhwa did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the case and in fact, even the officer-in-charge of Garhwa Police Station had submitted his report to the learned Court below at Garhwa, stating the fact that since the place of occurrence is beyond the jurisdiction of Garhwa, the proceeding may not be continued by Courts at Garhwa.;