Asgar Khan and Another vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Another

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561A of Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings drawn by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhadarwah vide order dated 14.10.2004

in a complaint, titled, Ratna Devi v. Asgar Khan and Anr., on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.

Respondent No. 2, Ratna Devi had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhadarwah on 24.8.2004 with the allegation that

on 22.8.2004 at about 7 PM the petitioners accused entered into her house, abused her and outraged her modesty. She and her children made

hue and cry. The petitioners-accused intimidated her and threatened to kill her and her children. Her husband was not present because he was on

duty. She lodged a report in the police station concerned. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 8 PM petitioner-accused No. 2 again entered into

her house and abused her and her children. It is further alleged that she had made a report with the police, but when the police did not take any

cognizance in the matter, she preferred a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhadarwah. The learned Judicial Magistrate

directed the concerned police to submit the inquiry report in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The police made the inquiry and submitted the report

that the complaint was false. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bhadarwah dismissed the complaint vide order dated

14.9.2004.

The complainant-respondent No. 2 filed another complaint on 14.10.2004 relating to the same occurrence with same allegations. The learned

Magistrate has drawn cognizance and issued process vide order dated 14.10.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-accused questioned the said

order by means of revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadarwah and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated

18.2.2006. The learned Sessions Judge observed that complainant-respondent No. 2 has not mentioned in the second complaint about the

dismissal of first complaint and, accordingly, held that there was nothing before the learned Magistrate in order to hold that the earlier complaint

relating the same occurrence and containing same allegations was dismissed.

After dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioners-accused have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceedings.

Admittedly, the first complaint relating the same occurrence and containing the same allegations came to be dismissed. Thus, the second

complaint is not maintainable. I wonder why the learned Sessions Judge has not thrashed out the dismissal of earlier complaint and its effect. It is

beaten law of the land that the accused cannot be tried twice. The complainant has not challenged the dismissal of earlier complaint and that order

has attained finality. The second complaint on the face of it is abuse of the process of law.

Viewed thus, this petition is allowed and the entire proceedings drawn by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhadarwah are quashed and the

complaint is dismissed.