IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49030 of 2008
======================================================
1. Kausika @ Kaushal Kishore Mandal son of Mahesh Mandal
2. Mahesh Mandal son of late Brahmdeo Mandal
3. Pankaj Kumar Mandal alias Pankaj Mandal son of Mahesh Mandal.
4. Jitendra Mandal son of Dasrath Mandal.
5. Rajiv Mandal son of Wakil Mandal.
6. Ujjawal Kumar Mandal son of Shatrughan Mandal.
7. Purusotam Kumar son of Binay Kumar Mandal.
8. Mritunjay Kumar alias Mritunjay Kumar Mandal son of Binay Kumar
Mandal.
9. Sumit Kumar son of Late Ashok Kumar Mandal.
10. Amit Kuimar @ Amit Kumar Mandal son of late Ashok Mandal.
All resident of village Sahpur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Bhagalpur.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Navin Kumar Mandal son of late Mahabir Mandal, resident of village-
Sahpur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Bhagalpur…(Informant)
3. Toni Kumari alias Sunita Kumari daughter of Navin Kumar Mandal
and wife of Kaushika alias Kaushal Kishore Mandal, residernt of
village Sahpur, P.S. Bhawanipur (Bihpur) District Bhagalpur (alleged
victim)
…. …. Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Kant Prasad, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P.
======================================================
2 24-08-2011 Heard the parties.
The petitioners have filed the present application under
Section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent power of this Court for
quashing the order dated 15th July 2008 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Falka
(Pothia) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2006, whereby cognizance under
Sections 363 and 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been
taken against the petitioners.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49030 of 2008 (2) dt.24-08-2011
2
The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners for
quashing the impugned order is that for the same and common
occurrence two First Information Reports (vide Annexures-1 & 2)
have been lodged by opposite party no.2. Therefore, impugned
order taking cognizance is not sustainable in the eye of law, as it is
hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy.
From the plain perusal of earlier F.I.R. (Annexure-2), giving
rise to Bihpur P.S. Case No. 3 of 2006 dated 04.01.2006, it appears
that the date of occurrence has been shown to be 30.12.2005 and in
that case, only two persons have been arrayed in the category of
accused. However, in the subsequent F.I.R. (Annexure-1), giving
rise to Falka (Pothia) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2006 dated 01.12.2006,
the date of occurrence has been shown to be 03.11.2006, i.e.
almost after eleven months from the first occurrence on the basis
of which earlier F.I.R. (Annexure-2) was lodged. In the present
F.I.R. (Annexure-1) altogether ten persons have been arrayed in
the category of accused. From perusal of both the F.I.Rs. (vide
Annexures-1 & 2), it appears that the two criminal cases have been
lodged with respect to altogether two different occurrence and,
therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that
for the same occurrence two F.I.Rs. (vide Annexures-1 & 2) have
been lodged, is apparently misconceived and not tenable in the eye
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49030 of 2008 (2) dt.24-08-2011
3
of law.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
BTiwary/-