Arvind Singh Rana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5718 MP

                               1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                    AT GWALIOR
                                        BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                          ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2023
                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3673 of 2023
       Between:-

       ARVIND SINGH RANA S/O SHRI
       INDRAJEET SINGH RANA, AGED 53
       YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE,
       R/O WARD NO.07, RAGHVENDRA
       BHAWAN, LAXMINARAYAN MANDIR
       MARG KALABAGH GANJBASODA P.S.
       SEHAR    GANJBASODA,   DISTRICT-
       VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                    ........PETITIONER

       (PETITIONER IS PRESENT IN PERSON)


       AND

       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH       POLICE STATION-
       R.P.F. BEENA, DISTRICT- VIDISHA
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                   ........RESPONDENT

       (BY SHRI V.P.S. TOMAR - PANEL LAWYER)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This application coming on for hearing, this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                        ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the

applicant against the order dated 07/12/2022 passed by 7 th Additional

Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.568/2022, affirming

the interim order dated 26/9/2022 passed by JMFC and Special Railway

Magistrate, Bhopal in RCT No.139/2013 whereby an application under

Section 300 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that on 31/10/2011, the complainant-

M.S. Patel, who is Sub-Inspector of R.P.F. Ganjbasoda, alongwith driver-

Ravikant was returning after patrolling in the night and going to patrol the

Baret Station then three persons were found in suspicious condition. When

they inquired them about their identity, they failed to establish their identity.

During this, some altercation took place between the complainant and the

accused persons. Thereafter, petitioner and co-accused abused him and

assaulted by means of sword on his head which hit on his left eye and

thereafter, by another blow given by them, two teeth of the complainant

were broken and he received injuries. Thereafter, petitioner and co-accused

ran away from the spot by black colour pulsar motorcycle bearing

registration No.MP15-ME-8290. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR bearing

Crime No.60/2012 was registered at Police Station- G.R.P., District- Vidisha

(M.P.) against the petitioner and co-accused person under Sections 353, 332,

323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC. Simultaneously, another FIR bearing Crime

No.2245/2012 was registered against the petitioner and co-accused person at

Police Station- R.P.F., Beena, District- Sagar (M.P.) for the offence under

Sections 145, 146, 147 of Railways Act. After investigation, charge sheet

was filed before Railway Magistrate, Bhopal (M.P.).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per section 300 of

Cr.P.C., a person once convicted and acquitted not to be tried again for the

same offence. In the case registered at Police Station- G.R.P. Vidisha, order

has been passed and petitioner alongwith co-accused- Ramdayal has been

convicted under Section 333 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 3 years' RI with

fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Therefore, in light of section 300

of Cr.P.C., the present case registered at R.P.F. Beena, District- Sagar (M.P.)

pending before the Railway Magistrate be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of the Apex

Court passed in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.1400 of 2022.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and

submitted that case of the petitioner comes in the purview of Section 300 of

Cr.P.C. and as per Section 300 (4) of Cr.P.C., a person acquitted or convicted

of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal

or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence

constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by

which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he

is subsequently charged. He relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court

in the case of Samvasivan and others Vs. Inspector of Railway

Protection Force, Katpadi N.A. [1976 Cri LJ 36].

It is thus clear that the same facts may give rise to different

prosecution and punishment and in such an event the protection provided by

Article 20(2) of Constitution of India is not available. It is settled law that a

person can be prosecuted and punished more than once even on

substantially same facts provided the ingredients of both the offences are

totally different and they did not form the same offence.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

is of the view that a person can be tried again for the same acts, therefore, no

palpable illegality or error is found and no case for interference is made out

in the matter. Accordingly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE

RAHUL SINGH Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR

rahul DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4de

PARIHAR e473fe77953f5, pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D487, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4AB9D1 59B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.04.12 18:48:50 +05'30'