Ashok Mehrotra and Another vs State of M.P.

M.C. Garg, J.—It is an interesting case leading to double jeopardize inasmuch the petitioners are being subjected to second trial on similar allegations for which they were acquitted in the first prosecution vide Special Case No. 2/2000. In the first case allegation was that the land belonging to the Defence was sold by the petitioners illegally. In those proceedings it could not be held that the land belongs to the Defence and the petitioners and others were acquitted vide order dated 17th July, 2006 passed in Special Case No. 2/2000. Relevant observation regarding ownership of the property is as under:-

Now by registration of another FIR being Crime No. 495/2011, a similar issue is being raised on behalf of the Defence Establishment, but in the different form i.e. by putting old wine and new bottle that the petitioners had no capacity to act as owners while selling the property despite admitting that they are in settled possession thereof. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners were only the licensee whereas it is the case of the petitioners that they are purchaser of the property though their grand father and are in settled possession. In these circumstances, the present prosecution is barred on account of the principle of double jeopardize. Moreover even if the respondent has any stake in the immovable property subject-matter of the FIR, they are required to establish their title by filing civil suit for establishing that they are title holder in the property and for a declaration that the petitioners or their ancestors are not the owners of the property.

With this liberty as aforesaid present petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated vide Crime No. 495/2011 for offences under sections 406, 418, 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 IPC are quashed. The bail bonds of the petitioners, if any, stand discharged.