IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40213 of 2007 AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SON OF SRI RAMDINPRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- ITWAN, P.S.- HASPURA,DISTRICT- AURANGABAD Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MADAN RAM SON OF LATE RAMDENI RAM, R/O VILLAGE- DEO GODAMPAR, P.S.- DEO, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD ----------- 5 19/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 19.6.2007 passed in Haspura P.S. Case No. 30 of 2006 arising out of Complaint Case No. 970 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aurangabad whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420, 406, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (2) (x), 3 (2) (vii) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner has been taken and further for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him arising out of Haspura P.S. Case No. 30 of 2006. Opposite Party No. 2 has filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 970 of 2003 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad against the petitioner and others under Sections 467, 468, 420, 2 406, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (2) (x), 3 (2) (vii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alleging inter alia that the complainant and the petitioner were employees of the Health Department and were working in the same office. The Complainant/opposite party no. 2 was posted at Haspura Health Centre on 12th December, 1994. It took some days in payment of salary of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and as such he contacted the petitioner. On 8.10.1997, the petitioner told the complainant that he is making efforts for securing the release of the salary. On 8th October, 1997 the petitioner along with the complainant reached the Leprosy Control Unit of the Health Centre and through signature of complainant, he took Rs. 37,772/- and out of which only Rs. 11,000/- was given to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and remaining amount of Rs. 26,772/- was kept by the petitioner himself. Again, Rs. 88,163/- came through draft which the petitioner kept with himself and informed the complainant to take money. When the complainant opened the joint account at Post Office in the name of his wife then the draft was deposited and the petitioner took his signature on the withdrawal form and also took signature from another lady in place of his wife and withdrew Rs. 70,000/- from the account of the 3 complainant and only Rs. 7,000/- was returned to the complainant and rest amount was usurped. The information was given to the Civil Surgeon but no solution was made. Then a complaint case was filed which was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the dismissal of complaint, the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 preferred a revision application before the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and that revision application was withdrawn. After some time, the complainant and other witnesses came to the accused for taking balance money. The request was ignored and the amount was refused to be given. Again a complaint was filed which was referred to the Police and the case was investigated into. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the same offence a complaint case was registered earlier and when that was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then a revision was preferred by the Opposite Party No. 2. That revision was withdrawn and again for the same offence a complaint case was filed which has been sent to the Police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the regular FIR was registered and after investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken. Further grievance of 4 the petitioner is that for one occurrence, one cannot be harassed many times. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the revision was withdrawn because some persons advised the Opposite Party No. 2 that he is a poor person and he should not prolong the litigation and he should try to sort out the matter outside the Court and in this background, that revision application was withdrawn. It is further submitted that still the amount was not given and the accused namely, the petitioner is threatening him, and as such the impugned order taking cognizance is correct. After perusal of the order and the records, it appears that earlier the same offence has resulted in a complaint case which was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that order was challenged before the Revisional Court where the revision application was withdrawn. Now for the same offence another complaint case was filed which resulted into present police case in which impugned order taking cognizance has been passed. For one offence, a person cannot be prosecuted a number of times. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 19.6.2007 passed in Haspura P.S. Case No. 30 of 2006 arising out of Complaint Case No. 970 of 2003 as well as 5 proceeding arising out of that case is quashed. However, it is made clear that the Opposite Party no. 2 is at liberty, if so advised, to move before the appropriate Authority/Court for realization of his amount. In the result, this application is allowed. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)