IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53307 of 2006 YOGENDRA KUMAR VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Prithvi Raj Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. __________ O R D E R The petitioner with the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over his head literally in the form of double jeopardy , has prayed for the quashing of the F.I.R. of Gaya Magadh Medical P.S Case no.34 of 2001. Briefly stated the prosecution case as culled out from the written report submitted by one Vinay Kumar Singh is that at about 8.00 A.M. on 21.6.2001 his son Vikash and two daughters, Sunita and Anita had gone to school but when Sunita did not return from school along with Vikash and Anita, their worried mother asked about the whereabouts of Sunita. When they gave out that she was not in the school, vigorous search was made for her without any success whereupon the informant had come to the Police Station to lodge information. His suspicion lay on Raj Kumar, the son of the Sarhu of co-villager Ramadhar Singh, who was putting up in the village for the past month and half. It was alleged that Ramadhar’s niece ( Bhatiji) Nirmala had been coming to his house regularly over the past 3-4 days and would induce Sunita to accompany her to her house and on 20.6.2001 while Sunita was returning from school enroute she was taken by Nirmala to her house where she locked Sunita and - 2 - Raj Kumar in a room. On receipt of information the wife of the informant went there and severely castigated Sunita. It is also alleged that even on 21.6.2001 Raj Kumar had met Sunita while she was going to school . The sanguine belief of the informant was that it was Raj Kumar who had abducted Sunita, aged 15 years for purposes of marrying her. On the basis of the written report Magadh Medical P.S. Case no.34 of 2001 was registered under Sections-363 , 366 I.P.C. It appears that Sunita alias Rashmi Singh with Dhirendra Kumar Singh , Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Yogendra Kumar Verma were arrested from within the jurisdiction of Burtolla P.S. in Calcutta on 3.7.2001 and as it appeared from the statement of Sunita that she had been brought by the three accused to the “ Red Light” area to be sold for the purpose of prostitution , G.R Case no.1237 of 2001 under Sections -366A,372/34 I.P.C. was registered and a chargesheet was submitted against the three accused. In the resultant Sessions Trial no.49 of 2003 the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.IV , Calcutta by Judgment dated 7.2.2004 acquitted all the three accused of all the charges framed against them under Section-233 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his life or liberty cannot be put twice in jeopardy for the same offence on the same set of facts, he having once been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction. Sub Section (1) of Section-300 Cr.P.C. provides that a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction - 3 - for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Sub Section (1) of Section-221 or for which he might have been convicted under Sub Section-(2) thereof. Admittedly, the Section is based on the principle that no man’s life or liberty shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence on the same set of facts and embodies the principles of English Common Law pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict . In order that the bar in the Section may apply , it must be shown (a) a person has once been actually tried by a competent court for same offence charged in the second trial or (b) though not actually tried for the same offence charged in the second trial, he could have been on the same facts charged with it under Section-221 (1) Cr.P.C. or convicted of it under Section-221(2) Cr.P.C. In the instant case the primary allegation was of Sunita being kidnapped . Upon her recovery at Calcutta she gave her statement under Section-161 Cr.P.C. before the Calcutta Police and then again before Gaya Police on her return to Gaya. With minor variations, the recitals in both the statements were more or less the same attributing allegations against the persons apprehended with her at Calcutta including this petitioner. The petitioner has already been charged and acquitted of the offences under Sections-366A, 372/34 I.P.C. by a Calcutta Court of - 4 - competent jurisdiction. On the same set of facts, the petitioner is now sought to be prosecuted by Gaya Police under Sections-363, 366 I.P.C. The later charges were also available to the Calcutta Court, but no charge thereunder was framed. Having secured an acquittal from a court in Calcutta of competent jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot now be prosecuted for different offences on the same set of facts. His prosecution by the Gaya Police would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and is required to be quashed. Accordingly, this application succeeds and the criminal proceeding originating from the F.I.R. of Gaya Magadh Medical P.S. Case no.34 of 2001 is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated: The 24th June,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.