M.D. Shah, J.@mdashThis petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioners for quashing of Criminal Case No. 6704 of 2010 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nadiad.
2. Short facts which have arisen from the petition are that in pursuance of a written application given by Chief Executive Kothari-Shri Dharmapriyadasji @ Bapu Swami Guru Dharma Swarupdasji of Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Vadtal, to Police Sub Inspector, Chaklasi Police Station, a complaint was registered as C.R. No. I-4 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 120-B of IPC and Section 5(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act against the Petitioners and other accused persons on 8-1-2005. During the course of investigation, Petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 5-3-2005 and was sent to judicial custody. He was however released on bail on 19-3-2005 by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 8, Nadiad. At the end of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the said case and case has been numbered as Criminal Case No. 6704 of 2010 and is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad.
3. Another complaint was filed by Police Sub Inspector, Crime Branch, on 15-2-2005 against eight persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 292, 294, 295 and 420 of IP Code, Section 67 of Information Technology Act and Sections 5 and 9 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. Petitioners were arrested on 18-2-2005. Petitioner No. 1 was released on bail by this Court on 25-3-2005. Charge sheet was filed in the said case and case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was registered as Sessions Case No. 229 of 2006 wherein Petitioners were shown as accused Nos. 7 and 5 respectively. Petitioners preferred applications for discharge. However, it was rejected vide order dated 21-10-2008 passed in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2006 by the learned Adl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, against which, Petitioner No. 1-Nandlal Kalabhai Pandav preferred Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 726 of 2008 while the Petitioner No. 2-Himmatbhai Parsottambhai Laheri preferred Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 744 of 2008 before this Court. This Court (Coram: Ms. Justice H.N. Devani) allowed both the applications and discharged them from all the charges levelled against them from the said case.
4. On 10-12-2010 a charge sheet came to be filed by Nadiad Town Police Station against them before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad, in Criminal Case No. 6704 of 2010 although the Petitioners were already discharged by this Court in the same set of offences. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the Petitioners for quashing the said charge.
5. Heard learned advocate, Mr. A.D. Shah for the Petitioners and learned APP, Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1-State.
6. Rule. Mr. L.R. Pujari for the Respondent No. 1-State waives service of rule.
7. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr. A.D. Shah, that the charge sheet submitted against the Petitioners accused pertaining to C.R. No. I-4 of 2005 registered with Chaklasi Police Station relates to the same set of evidence in relation to offence registered as C.R. No. I-5 of 2005 by DCB Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad, wherein witnesses and accused are almost the same, which is legally not permissible. According to him, when DCB Crime, Ahmedabad City, has already submitted charge sheet in the same set of evidence and case was committed to the Sessions Court, Nadiad Town Police Station should not to have filed charge sheet after a long lapse of time in relation to the same set of evidences and recovery of muddamal articles. It is further submitted that there cannot be two separate charge sheets by two different agencies in respect of commission of same set of evidences. It is further submitted that in one case, Petitioners were discharged by this Court and hence, continuation of proceedings qua C.R. No. I-4 of 2005 registered by Chaklasi Police Station and investigated by LCB, Kheda, being related to the same offence registered as C.R. No. I-5 of 2005 by DCB Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad wherein the Petitioners were discharged by this Court amounted to abuse of process of law. It is therefore requested that the Petitioners be discharged from the said charge.
8. In this connection, he has relied on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of
7. Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution. While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that ''no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once'', Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts.
8. In the present case, although the offences are different but the facts are the same. Hence, Section 300(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure applies. Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.
9. He has also relied on following decisions:
i) (2004) 5 G.H.J. 311 in the case of Harshadbhai N. Patel v. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 G.H.J. 311;
ii)
iii)
10. Learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted that appropriate order may be passed. He, however, has submitted that observations made by this Court in this order may not come in the way of parties while deciding the trial.
11. This Court has gone through the papers of charge sheet in both the Crime Register Numbers registered with Chaklasi Police Station and DCB Crime, Ahmedabad City. This Court has also gone through the judgment and order dated 20-1-2009 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 726 of 2008 with Criminal Revision Application No. 744 of 2008. Vide said judgment and order, both the Petitioners were discharged from the charges levelled against them in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2006 which has arisen from C.R. No. I-5 of 2005 registered with DCB Crime, Ahmedabad City. It is submitted by learned advocate for the Petitioners that the present charge sheet filed against the Petitioners arising from C.R. No. I-4 of 2005 of Chaklasi Police Station relates to the same facts of Sessions Case No. 229 of 2006. It has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra) that no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. In the present case also, even though the offences are different, facts are the same and hence, in view of judgment reported in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (supra), proceedings in Criminal Case arising out of C.R. No. I-4 of 2005 of Chaklasi Police Station should not be permitted to continue qua the Petitioners when the Petitioners were already discharged by this Court vide judgment and order dated 20-1-2009 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 726 of 2008 with Criminal Revision Application No. 744 of 2008. This application therefore requires to be allowed.
12. Thus, this application is allowed. Criminal Case No. 6704 of 2010 arising from C.R. No. I-4 of 2005 registered with Chaklasi Police Station pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nadiad, is quashed and set aside qua the present Petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
13. The observations made by this Court in this judgment being made for the purpose of deciding this application shall not prejudice the parties in trial.
