The Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order affirming cumulative FIRs regarding Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act offences. The Court held clubbing of cases was a valid recourse and found no interference warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
M.P. dismissed. Stay petition dismissed. Impugned orders affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1274/2011
Maniram & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.
Date of Order :: 1.2.12.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.Rajesh Panwar, for the petitioners.
Mr.MA Bhurat, PP. for the respondent State.
The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 25.5.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.48/2010 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 28.7.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that in relation to the very same incident, the complainant had earlier filed an F.I.R. against the petitioners in which police after investigation did not find offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act made out. Later on, the complainant filed another complaint alleging offences including the offence for which charge-sheet has been filed earlier and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, on which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners thus submits that there cannot be two prosecutions for the same act. Thus, he prays that
2
the proceedings before the learned trial court deserves to be quashed.
I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the order impugned.
In the opinion of this Court, the learned Magistrate has taken recourse to the proceedings under Section 210 Cr.P.C. in clubbing of these two cases. It is not in dispute that in the FIR lodged earlier, there was an allegation for committing offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Thus, in the opinion of this court, the orders passed by the courts below do not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, the present misc. petition, being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
S.Phophaliya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings against petitioners for SC/ST Act offences can be quashed given clubbing of FIRs under Section 210 Cr.P.C.
Whether there is double jeopardy in prosecutions for the same incident charging offences under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Maniram & Ors.
State of Raj.
SANDEEP MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
