Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 287 (UTT)

ANIL PITTAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-05-16

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant seeks as follows: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the cognizance /summoning order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 807 of 2016, Stte vs. Manjula Pittar & another and subsequent proceedings of the aforesaid case, arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2014 under Sections 420, 467, 120-B of IPC” 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is facing two trials in respect of the same allegations levelled against him. The matter relates to a disputed Will executed by father of the applicant. The property left by applicant’s father devolved on him on the basis of said Will. On 17.03.2010, respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Learned Trial Court took cognizance and the applicant was summoned to face the trial. Charges were framed against him. Complainant’s witnesses were examined. The applicant was expecting his acquittal. Complainant smelt the same and, therefore, he lodged an FIR on 29.03.2014 on the same facts against the applicant and others. Said FIR was registered as Case crime No. 30 of 2014, under Sections 420 &120-B IPC, at Police Station Raipur, Dehradun. No 2nd FIR could have been lodged for the selfsame offences, but, the Police concerned, in collusion with complainant/respondent no.2 not only lodged the frivolous FIR, but also submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and his wife for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 120-B IPC. Wife of the applicant appeared in the Trial Court. Her bail application was rejected. She was, however, granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge only after 5 days. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report itself discloses that the criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is also pending in the criminal court at Dehradun and, therefore, no subsequent or second case should proceed against the applicant for the similar alleged offence. 4. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report itself discloses that the criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is also pending in the criminal court at Dehradun and, therefore, no subsequent or second case should proceed against the applicant for the similar alleged offence. 4. In a nutshell, first information report has been lodged against the applicant by the complainant on 29.03.2014 on similar facts, on which, the earlier complaint was filed on 17.03.2010 and therefore, the proceedings arising out of case crime no. 30 of 2014 (criminal case no. 807 of 2016 State vs. Manjula Pittar and another) should be quashed according to learned counsel. 5. A perusal of annexure-2 would indicate that a criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant against the present applicant. A bare look at annexure-4 would indicate that the first information report has been lodged in respect of selfsame offences by the complainant, taking aid of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 6. Nobody should be vexed twice for the same cause. It has already been indicated in the first information report that a criminal complaint case is pending against the applicant in respect of the selfsame offences. Present first information report was lodged on the basis of certain facts which emerged during the course of evidence and, therefore, a prayer was made to investigate the offence against Manjula Pittar, wife of Anil Pitter as well as concerned Bank officials. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted not only against Manjula Pittar, but, also against Anil Pittar with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. Manjula Pittar did not face the trial earlier but certainly present applicant cannot be compelled to face the trial in respect of the selfsame offences, in which he has already been facing trial in a criminal complaint case. 7. Section 210 Cr.P.C. provides as follows: “210. Manjula Pittar did not face the trial earlier but certainly present applicant cannot be compelled to face the trial in respect of the selfsame offences, in which he has already been facing trial in a criminal complaint case. 7. Section 210 Cr.P.C. provides as follows: “210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.- (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject- matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” [Emphasis supplied] 8. The Magistrate shall, therefore, inquire into or try together the complaint case and the criminal case arising out of the police report, as if both the cases were instituted on a police report in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 9. At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a direction be given to the learned Magistrate to decide the bail application of the applicant at an earliest without unreasonable delay, subject to the applicant’s surrender, inasmuch as, he has already undergone trial in respect of selfsame offences in a criminal complaint case in which he has already obtained bail. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he is confining his prayer only to the extent, as above. 11. Considering the above noted peculiar facts and circumstances, four weeks’ time is granted to the applicant to surrender before the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction whereafter he will be dealt with by learned court below according to Law. No coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant for a period of four weeks from today. 12. It is also provided that if the petitioner/applicant surrenders before the Court concerned well within the stipulated time and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, without unreasonable delay. 13. Application under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly disposed of.