Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40083 of 2010 Ram Gopal Prasad Yadav son of Late Sothi Bhagat, resident of Mohalla-Chowk Shikarpur, Police Station-Chowk, District Patna Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Kaushalya Devi wife of Ram Gopal Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla-Chowk Shikarpur Nala Par, Post Office Chowk, Police Station-Chowk, District Patna. Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 05 12.01.2012 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna City in Complaint Case No.51/2006 whereby the learned Court has rejected the petition dated 02.06.2010 for dropping the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 3. Earlier a Complaint Case No.440 ( C ) of 2003 was filed on 28.02.2003 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by the Complainant Kaushalya Devi, O.P No.2 for the offences under [STATUTE] . stating therein that she has been married for 30-35 years. It has been alleged that as she had not given birth to any child, the petitioner committed acts of cruelty and even assaulted her and threw her out of the house, threatening to kill her if she returned. 4. It is stated that based on such complaint cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Patna City on 13.07.2004 in terms of [STATUTE] . 2 5. Thereafter, pending the aforesaid complaint, another complaint claim to be filed in Complaint Case No. 51/2006 by the said complainant alleging substantially the same facts, which was filed before the learned A.C.J.M., Patna City and in respect of which also cognizance under [STATUTE] has been taken by order dated 27.06.2006. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second Complaint Case No.51 of 2006 during the pendency of the earlier complaint is not maintainable more so, when the fact of the first pending complaint has been suppressed. He further points out that subsequently the petitioner has been discharged in the first complaint case by order dated 24.5.2010 when not a single witness on behalf of the complainant appeared. 7. Be that as it may, it appears on a perusal of the two complaints filed by the complainant that the allegations contained therein are substantially similar. It is also seen that the fact of the first pending complaint has nowhere been mentioned in the second complaint. 8. Notice issued to the complainant O.P.No.2 has been treated as validly served, but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. 9. In the above view of the matter, this Court holds that filing of a second complaint suppressing the fact of the first complaint on substantially similar facts amounts to abuse of process of the Court and cannot be sustained. 3 10. The order of cognizance dated 19.8.2010 in Complaint Case No.51/2006 is accordingly quashed. Chandran (Vikash Jain, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.