1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Ram Niwas & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2125/2010 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Date of Order :: November 23, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Vinay Mathur for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kumar PP for the State. Faced with the investigation in FIR No.529/2010 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar for offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC, the petitioner has rushed to this court. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as the Manager of the Sikar Central Central Co- operative Bank Limited. Due to some political rivalry, one complaint was filed by few people against petitioner No.1. After receiving the complaint, the Managing Director of Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Limited initiated proceedings under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. The Manging Director appointed Ratan Lal Jat as the investigator in the complaint and directed him to complete the proceedings within one month. Thereafter 2 Mr. Laxman Singh has been appointed as an investigator. The Sikar Central Co-operative Bank directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner No.1 as per the rules. In pursuance of the order dated 30.09.2010, the president of Devipura Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter Mr. Rajesh filed complaint before a court against the petitioners. On the basis of the complaint, a FIR was registered against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court for quashing of the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously raised the following contentions; firstly, the complaint was filed by one Rajesh before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The said complaint was sent for further investigation and the FIR was registered on the said complaint. However, the complainant does not have a locus standi, as he is not a member of the Co- Operative society. Secondly, with regard to the same set of charges, the Department itself has taken action against the petitioner and has punished him with a minor punishment. Therefore the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against him. For, the initiation of the criminal proceedings would violate the doctrine of double jeopardy 3 as contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, there is not an iota of evidence for roping in petitioner No.2, Sumit Kumar and petitioner No.3, Vijaypal, who happen to be sons of petitioner No.1, Ram Niwas. According to the learned counsel, the sons are being roped in because of political rivalry with petitioner No.1. Thus, they are being falsely implicated in the present case. This Court is unable to accept any of the three contentions raised by the learned counsel for the following reasons :- Firstly, it is a settled principle of law that any person can lodge a FIR provided a cognizable offence has been committed by known or unknown person. Therefore, merely because, the complaint was filed by one Rajesh and the FIR was chalked on the basis of the said complaint, the question of locus standi of the complainant is immaterial. Moreover, in the complaint, the complainant himself claims to be a member of the Co-Operative society. Thus, prima faice, he seems to have a locus standi. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complainant does not have any interest in the co-operative society, but this is an aspect that needs to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 4 Moreover, even if he were not to have any interest in the complaint, the law permits him to lodge a complaint against the petitioners. The question of double jeopardy is restricted only to the criminal law. Merely because, the petitioners may have been punished departmentally, the lodging of the FIR and the initiation of a criminal proceedings thereby is not hit by the concept of double jeopardy. In order for the doctrine of double jeopardy to be invoked, the person has to be twice prosecuted and punished for the same criminal offence. Therefore, the contention that merely because the petitioner has been punished departmentally, therefore, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated as it would be hit by double jeopardy, such a contention is misplaced. According to the FIR, certain allegations have been made against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. Therefore, prima faice, a case under Section 120B is made out against them. Of course, it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the extent of involvement of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 along with petitioner No.1 for having committed criminal conspiracy. At this initial stage, it is not for this Court to give any judicial finding whether petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are involved in the conspiracy or not? 5 Therefore, this Court directs the Investigating Officer to carry out an impartial and fair investigation and to consider the evidence which could be produced by the accused petitioners before him and to proceed accordingly. In these terms, the petition stands disposed of. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-