ORDER
1. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether once a complaint has been investigated by the police and a ‘B’ report is submitted, it is accepted by the Court and the accused are discharged, whether the complainant can file a second complaint on the same allegations and the accused can be prosecuted.
2. The facts which have led to this question may briefly be stated as follows :-
The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners-accused for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 149, 307 and 427 IPC before the Alur Police. On a reference under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. being made, the police after investigation submitted a ‘B’ report to the Court of the Munsiff and JMFC, Sakleshpura. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 22-5-1990 accepted the ‘B’ report, passed an order regarding the properties which had been seized, and discharged the accused who were attending the proceedings. Subsequently, the complainant-respondent did not challenge the order accepting the ‘B’ report and discharging the accused. The complainant who had filed his objections to the ‘B’ report did not persue the matter and remained absent.
3. Subsequently the complainant-respondent filed a second complaint on the very same allegations on 26-6-1990. By an order dated 5-11-1992, the trial Court took cognizance of the offences and directed the issue of process to the accused.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused have preferred this revision petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent.
6. As pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate on 25-4-92 itself goes to show that there is such a ‘B’ report on the first complaint with regard to the very same incident. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced certified copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the ‘B’ report on 22-5-1990. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was aware about the order accepting the ‘B’ report when he passed the impugned order. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there cannot be a double jeopardy for the accused. Article 20 clause 2 of the Constitution of India reads in this regard as follows :- “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. It is clear from the facts that the second complaint filed by the respondent is against this principle. The learned Magistrate therefore could not have taken cognizance of the second complaint and directed the issue of process against the petitioners-accused. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
8. Petition allowed.