Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14478 of 2012 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Mandal, S/o Late Sharda Singh, R/o Village- Ojhawaliya, P.S- Kochas, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Shambhu Prasad Kanu, S/o Late Jyoti Sah, R/o Village- Kochas, P.S- Kochas, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shardaa Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 3 17-04-2012 Heard Mr. Sudama Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner has questioned the proceedings arising from Complaint Case No.1493 of 2007 including the order dated 17.09.2008, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] as against the petitioner. It is a matter of record that on complaint made by the aggrieved persons including the petitioner before the Block Development Officer, Kochas an FIR was instituted giving rise to Kochas P.S. Case No.78 of 2007. The FIR and its enclosures have been placed at Annexure-2 of this application and the name of the complainant appears at serial no.4 of the aggrieved persons whose application is appended in the FIR and is placed at page 21 of this application. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14478 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 2 The submission made before this Court is that once an FIR was instituted on 17.08.2007 on the basis of the complaint made by aggrieved persons including the complainant and the grievance raised by the complainant, taken care of, the institution of the complaint on 21.11.2007 by the opposite party no.2 and its continuation would be contrary to the statutory provisions underlying section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). It is contended that the learned Magistrate should have stayed the proceedings arising from the complaint case as the petitioner cannot be vexed twice for the same offence. He further submits that charge-sheet has been submitted in the police case and cognizance taken. It is thus submitted that as the grievance of the complainant raised in the complaint placed at Annexure-1 to the present application has also been taken note of in the FIR and the accused in both cases are the same, the continuation of the present complaint would be vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having perused the materials on record, this Court without expressing any opinion on the issue raised, disposes of this application affording liberty to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of section 210 of the Code bringing all the aspects as raised in the application, to the notice of the court below and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.