Judgment :- 1. Petitioners have sought for quashing of proceedings in S.C.No.140/2005 pending on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge at Bijapur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 336, 333, 332, 504, 506(2) read with Section 149 of IPC and further read with Section 2(a) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction of Loss of Property Act, 1981. 2. Bijapur Rural Public registered a case in Crime No.257/2002 on 21.12.2002 for the above said offences, interalia alleging that, the incident has taken place between 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. on 21.12.2002. It is alleged that, the police was on bandobast duty in connection with the election of President and Vice President of Madabhavi Grama Panchayath. For the said election, Jainabi w/o Razacksab Madabhavi and Lakshmi Bai w/o Pulesha Bandivaddara were likely candidates to be elected as President and Vice President. One Ningappa Parasappa Puraji had also submitted his nomination, date was fixed for scrutiny of the nomination. The said Ningappa Pujari had no majority support in this regard. Accused wanted to disturb the election process. The accused came in 2 jeeps and 7 to 8 motor bikes and about 10 to 12 persons had armed with stone, club and picked up a quarrel with the election officer, destroy the nomination papers and other election material. They assaulted the former President and also threw stones at the police and caused grievous injuries. Police apprehending that the situation may aggravate, police informed the high authorities for additional security. It is alleged that, the accused had come in support of Ningappa Pujari, who was the candidate contesting for Vice President Post and knowing that the said Ningappa had no major support, intentionally forming unlawful assembly to disturb the election, they assaulted and disturbed the election process and caused injuries also. In view of this incident, the police registered the case and on investigation has filed the charge sheet and now the matter is pending before the learned Sessions Judge. At this stage, this petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings. 3. Heard Sri K M Moddie, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Smt Anuradha Desai, Addl. SPP for the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the very police had registered four other cases in Crime Nos.253/2002, 254/2002, 255/2002 and 256/2002. At this stage, this petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings. 3. Heard Sri K M Moddie, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Smt Anuradha Desai, Addl. SPP for the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the very police had registered four other cases in Crime Nos.253/2002, 254/2002, 255/2002 and 256/2002. In all these cases, the date, time and place of incident is shown as 21.12.2002 at 14.15, 14.20, 14.30 and 14.20 p.m. respectively and the place of incident is one and the same. He also submitted that jurisdictional police and the accused in all these crime are also one and the same. The motive and other allegations are also one and the same. The present crime is registered for the offence alleged to have taken place between 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. on the same day i.e., 21.12.2002 by the same accused at the same place with the same motive. He submitted that, if the incident has taken place between 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. the police, could have registered one crime as against the said incident. However, police with intention to implicate these accused in as many cases as possible, they went on registering the case one after the another i.e., between 2.15 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. Though four cases were separately registered at the interval of 5 to 10 minutes each, being not satisfied with the same, one more case was registered i.e., the present Crime No.257/2002, the time of incident is shown as 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. which is nothing but covering the earlier offences. He submitted that having registered the case for the same offence in four different crime cases, without any other incident and for the same offence, the present crime is registered. 5. He further submitted that, these accused, who were also the accused in other four cases, were tried and have been acquitted, allegation in Crime No.253/2002 and the allegation in Crime No.257/2002 literally one and the same. Even the incident time, date and place is also same. Accused who have been tried in the same incident, they cannot be tried for the said incident once again by registering another crime and submitted that it amounts to double jeopardy and violation of Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. 6. Learned Addl. Even the incident time, date and place is also same. Accused who have been tried in the same incident, they cannot be tried for the said incident once again by registering another crime and submitted that it amounts to double jeopardy and violation of Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. 6. Learned Addl. SPP submitted that since the incident had taken place at different intervals, different crimes have been registered by the police. There is no motive or personal interest by the police officers to register unnecessary case against the accused. The information is received as regards to the incident took place between 14.15 to 14.45 p.m. The Police have registered the present case in Crime No.257/2002. It does not amount to multiplying the same crime nor amounts to double jeopardy and submitted that the other crimes are tried separately. As far as this crime is concerned, police have filed the charge sheet and now matter is pending for trial. 7. It is not in dispute that, all crimes are registered against the same accused. It is also not in dispute that the case against the accused is by the same Police Station, it is also not in dispute that in all the cases place and date of the incident is also same. It is not in dispute four crimes were registered for the incident that alleged to have taken place between 14.15 to 14.30 on 21.12.2002. If that is so, it is ununderstanable as to how one more crime could be registered for the same incident. In the present Crime No.257/2002, the date and time of incident is 21.12.2002 between 14.15 to 14.45. Whereas Crime No.253/2004 is for the incident at 14.15, Crime No.245/2002 is for the incident 14.20, Crime No.255/2002 is for the incident 14.20, Crime No.255/2002 is for the incident at 14.30 and the crime No.256/2002 is at 14.20 and all are on 21.12.2002. It is not in dispute that the accused alleged in the said case are accused in this case also. It is also not in dispute that the alleged place of incident is one and the same in all these crimes, is also not in dispute. The motive alleged in all the crimes is one and the same. It is also not in dispute, the case is registered by the same police. 8. It is also not in dispute that the alleged place of incident is one and the same in all these crimes, is also not in dispute. The motive alleged in all the crimes is one and the same. It is also not in dispute, the case is registered by the same police. 8. If there is any crime committed by any person, the duty of police is to go to spot and collect the evidence and register the case as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. However, registering several crime for the same incident, only shows that the police instead of making investigation the offence, if any, has simply registered several case, it definitely reflects the conduct of the police officer. The conduct of the police officer in registering different crime for same incident, only show that the police officer has done it deliberately to implicate these accused in as many cases as possible. It is nothing but abuse of power and brings dis-repute to the police department. If amounts to misusing the power and authority vested in the police. 9. From the records produced in this case and undisputed registration of crime clearly makes out a case of abuse of authority and misuse of the power by the police. 10. Considering the fact and circumstances and the fact that other crimes for the same incident against the present accused have already been ended in acquitted, I find that the present proceedings in pursuance of Crime No.157/2002 are vitiated and or liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings in S.C.No.140/2005 pending on the file on I Addl. Sessions Judge at Bijapur stands quashed.