HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIQNERS: RESPONDENT: Criminal Misc. Petition No.305 of 2010 1. Smt. Saraswati Thakur W/o Rakesh Thakur, aged about 41 years, R/o Qtr. No.10 F, Street No.86, Near Durga Manch, Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg 2. Samir Rajput S/o Santosh Rajput, aged about 24 years, 3. Sanju Rajput S/o Santosh Raput, aged about21 years, Both R/o Village & Post Kurud(Bhilai), P.S. Jamul, District Durg (C.G.) Versus Rakesh Thakur S/o Shyam Lal Thakur, aged about 47 years, R/o Chaukhadiapara, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) {Petition underSection 482 ofCode ofCriminal Procedure} Present: <Mr. Saurabh Dangi, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the respondent. •SinflleBench: Hon'bleMr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (4-1-2011) 1. Hea^-d. 2. By this petition under Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 19-2-2010 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.142/2010 and the order dated 12-4-2010 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.143/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnahdgaon, whereby the Court below has taken.cognizance of the offence against the petitioners herein and registered offence punishable under Sections 341;; 294, 323 read with Section 34 and 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the basis ofsame act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that one criminal Complaint Case No.508/96 was pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg between ihe parties and order dated 3-3- ^ ^t \'^,,; '•» \\ 2010 has been passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.136/2010,at the instance of the petitioners herein, whereby this Court has directed to dispose of the case within six months from the next date of hearing of the case. Thereafter, with obljque motive, the respondent has falsely filed the aforesaid two complaint cases against the petitioners. Learned counsel furi:her submits that the second complaint i.e. Criminal Complaint Case No.143/2010 is not competent on the basis of same set of facts. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matterof WI.N. Ojha and othersv. AlokKumarSrivastav and another, (2009) 9 SCC 682, in which the SupremeCourt has held thatin caseof allegation and complaint not disclosing commission of offence, criminal proceeding should be quashed. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Poonam Chand Jain and another v. Fazru, (2004) 13 SCC 269, in which the Supreme Court has held that second complaint onsame facts after dismissal offirst one is not maintainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 294 & 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The respondenj:-s'bas filed complaint case before the trial Court and has specifically'"mentioned all facts relating to commission of offence, especially in para 5 of the complaint, but only on theground that the complainant/respondent has not mentioned the relevant Sections relating to defamation, the trial Court has not registered the offence also under Section 500 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC. Therefore, the respondent has filed second complaint case No.143/2010 for the offence punishable underSection 500 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC. 5. Ihave perysed copies of thecomplaints, copies ofthe orders impugned and other documents. 1 ' • ' ' ' ' . . .. - 6. After.considering the statements recorded under Section 200-202 ofthe CrPC, the trial Court has registered complaint against the petitioners. Wifhoutany substance and documents, at this stage, it is difficult to hold that the respondent has filed the aforesaid complaints with oblique motive or witha view to harass the petitioners. Both the complaints dearly reveal that the petitioners have committed the aforesaidoffence. Therefore, at this stage,! do not find any scope of interference in terms ~A-t Soma of Section 482 of the CrPC, though at the time of registering first case i.e. Criminal Complaint Case No.142/2010 the trial Court was under obligation to consider the case on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the statements, not merely on fhe basis of the Sections which the respondent has quoted in his first complaint. Therefore, in the ends ofjustice, it is directed that the trial Court shall try Criminal Complaint Case No.142/2010 and Criminal Complaint Case No.143/2010 together as series of offence committed during the course ofsametransaction. 7. With theseobservations, the petition stands disposed of. 8. Consequently, I.A.No.1 also stands disposed of. Sdf'- ^S. Sbarwa Judge