AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sengottuvelan, J.—This is an application filed by the three accused in C.C. No 194 of 1983 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, to quash the prosecution in that case, which is a private complaint by one Krishnaswamy Iyer of Azhwar Koil Village, Kanyakumari District.
The grounds on which the protection is sought to be quashed are at follows:
(1) In respect of the very same incident, (the respondent/ complainant in C.C. No. 19 of 1983 has made a police complaint, which is registered as Crime No. 101/83 of Kollancode Police Station, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The Petitioners also made a complaint in respect of the same incident and that has been registered as Crime No. 102/83 on the file of the same police station. On a report by the police with reference to both the cases, the learned Magistrate clubbed the same together and arrayed the respondent as ''A'' Party and the petitioners as ''B'' Party and took both the matters on file and issued notice. The Private complaint is in respect of the same transaction and hence, the prosecution will have to be quashed.
(2) The private complaint is made after a delay of 79 days, and as such, the prosecution will have to be quashed on the ground of delay alone.
The above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was admitted and notice was ordered to the respondent. The respondent, even after receiving the notice, chose to be absent.
On a verification of the records, it is seen that the occurrence, which is the subject-matter of the complaint in C.C. 194/83 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai is the same as the one in respect of which the police has reported in S.T.C. 724/83. Under the circumstances, there cannot be two prosecutions on the very same occurrence. Hence, the contention of the petitioners is well founded and the private complaint in C.C. No. 194 of 1983 will have to be quashed.
The second ground urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the prosecution has to be quashed also on the ground of inordinate delay. In view of the above conclusion that there cannot be two prosecutions in respect of one offence and on that ground, the prosecution is liable to be quashed, there is no need to go into the question of delay. Under the circumstances, the complaint in C.C. No. 194 of 1983 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai is ordered to be quashed and this application is allowed.