AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narain Singh "Azad", J.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2001, passed by J.M.F.C. Rewa, seeks exercise of inherent powers for the quashment of charge framed against him for an offence punishable U/S.498-A of the I.P.C.
The non-applicant No. 1 filed a criminal complaint against this petitioner for and offence punishable U/s.498-A of the I.P.C. the photocopy of which is marked as Annexure A/1. This complaint Annexure A/1 is dt.16th January, 1999. The Photostat copies of statements of non-applicant No.1 and her witness Raj Kumari, which are recorded U/s.200 of the Cr.P.C. are marked as Annexures A/2 and A/3. The learned C.J.M. Satna, is noted to have dismissed the aforesaid complaint of non-applicant No. 1 by order dated 28.3.2001, the photocopy of which is on record.
Thereafter, on 26th May, 2001, non-applicant No. 1 lodged a report against this petitioner at police station Matmatna, Dist. Rewa, for an offence punishable U/s. 498-A of the I.P.C., which reads as under :-
For the convenience and appreciation of actual position, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint dated 16.1.1999 are being reproduced below, which read as under:-
It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations which were made in private complaint are one and the same on the basis of which, the first information report is lodged by non-applicant No. 1 at Police Station Matmatna, District Rewa, on 26.5.2001 therefore, the learned J.M.F.C. was not justified in framing the charge against this petitioner on account of applicability of principle of atrofoist acquit and hence the charge framed against this petitioner on 12.9.2001, for an offence punishable U/S.498-A of the I.P.C. is liable to be quashed.
Ofcourse, in the absence of manifest error in earlier order or miscarriage of justice, a second complaint on the same allegations, after dismissal of the first complaint, U/s. 203 of the Cr.P.C., is held barred by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Pramatha Nath Taluqdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, , but in the present case, the complaint has not filed the second complaint, instead a Police report U/s. 173 of the Cr.P.C. is filed, against this petitioner on the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant, which might have been based on additional or different material, from the one considered earlier, on the same set of allegations. Secondly, the petitioner seems to have made no attempt to resist the trial of criminal case, in the Court of J.M.F.C. on the ground of atrofoist acquit and hence for the first time, he is not entitled to press this ground in service, seeking exercise of inherent powers, for the quashment of the criminal case.
Thus, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion hearing itself. The petitioner is free to take appropriate step in this regard in the trial Court, if permitted by law.