THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.405 AND 780 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These are the petitions ﬁled by the common petitioner to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.733 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and also in C.C.No.548 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Both of them are complaints of defamation. 2. The complainants have ﬁled private complaints on the ground that the petitioner herein made a statement in newspapers and also in electronic media on 15.09.2007 and 16.09.2007 making serious allegations about the conduct and integrity, which tarnishes the image and reputation of the complainants. The petitioner is said to have worked as Vigilance Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said statements, the claim for defamation was ﬁled. Subsequently, on representations made by the complainants, the Government has also granted sanction for prosecution and the Public Prosecutor has ﬁled C.C.No.8 of 2008 and C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the ﬁles of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the same allegations made by the petitioner herein. Both the cases are pending for trial and the present applications are ﬁled contending that he cannot be tried in two Courts for the same oﬀences and it is violative of the principles of law and case of double jeopardy. Therefore, the applications are ﬁled to quash the above criminal cases pending on the files of the Magistrate Courts. 3. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner can be prosecuted in two Courts for the alleged offences? 4. POINT: Notice has been given to the complainants and complainants were represented by Advocate. As can be seen from the complaints in both the cases, the petitioner, as a Vigilance Commissioner, is said to have disclosed names of several oﬃcers of the I.A.S., who worked in the Government of Andhra Pradesh, about their character and reputation and integrity. The allegations are alleged to be derogatory. The question whether the allegations are justiﬁable or not is a diﬀerent matter and at this stage, the truth or otherwise cannot be gone into. The only question is whether the criminal proceedings before the Courts of the Magistrate shall be continued when the Public Prosecutor had ﬁled complaints on the same allegations with the permission of the Government. Before that, it is to be noted that the Government has also acted on the representations of the complainants for necessary sanction and prosecution by the State. It is also to be noted that the contents in both the private complaints and also the complaints lodged by the Public Prosecutor almost verbatim the same and the complaints ﬁled by the Public Prosecutor are nothing but reproduction of the representations given by the complainants. There is also no dispute about the fact that the aggrieved party has got a personal remedy to ﬁle a private complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). There is also a power for the Government to initiate defamatory proceedings under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The right of the individual and the right of the State are not diﬀerent. Earlier prior to the amendment under Section 199 Cr.P.C., a private complaint has to be ﬁled and it has to be committed to the Court of Sessions. But, however, under Section 199 Cr.P.C., as stands now the Public Prosecutor can directly ﬁle a complaint for prosecution under Section 199 Cr.P.C., after complying with the necessary requirements under sub-clause 4. 5. It is fundamental that a person cannot be tried simultaneously for the same oﬀences before two Courts. When once the complainant having ﬁled private complaints have also moved the Government for prosecution under Section 199 Cr.P.C. It is the purpose of law that two conﬂicting judgments should not be delivered in a single cause and that too in a criminal proceeding. It is not permissible for an accused to be directed to answer a similar charge in two Courts. The purpose of this provision under Section 199 Cr.P.C., has been considered by the Supreme Court in Muneshwara Nand Vs. State[1], after elaborate discussion of the right of the individual to proceed privately by instituting a complaint and also the power of the State to initiate the prosecution. The purpose of the legislation has been made clear in the decision reported in P.C. Joshi and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh[2], wherein at page No.391 at the end of para No.7 it was held as follows: “The legislature could not have intended that in respect of the same oﬀence, there should be two complaints, one in the Court of Session and another in the Court of a Magistrate – and either both should be tried, or the proceedings should be consolidated after committal”. 6. Since the earlier law with regard to the committal of the case has been dispensed with and only a direct ﬁling of the complaint is envisaged under Section 199 Cr.P.C., the provisions under Section 210 Cr.P.C., with regard to clubbing of a police case and private complaint are not applicable since both the cases are based on complaint and consequently justiﬁcation of the transfer of the case from the Magistrate Court to the Sessions court also does not arise. 7. The learned counsel for the complainants has relied on several decisions, which recognizes the right of the complainant to institute the private complaint, which is not seriously in dispute. None of the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the complainants shows that simultaneous prosecution can be continued for the same offence. 8. The claim of the complainants that the compensation can be granted in a private complaint and whereas the prosecution in a complaint ﬁled by the Prosecutor is quite diﬀerent does not appears to be correct. Even in such cases the Court has got every right to compensate the victim, who is individually eﬀected. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there are no justiﬁable grounds to continue the prosecution of the accused on the private complaints before the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts. If the complainants are interested or apprehensive that the trial may not be properly conducted, they may make an application to the concerned Court and it may consider their request for assisting the Public Prosecutor. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.733 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and also in C.C.No.548 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are quashed as it is an abuse of process of law. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:30-11-2011 INL [1] 1961(1) Cri.L.J.1 [2] AIR 1961 Supreme Court 387