IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53676 of 2007 RAJENDRA PANDIT, Son of Shri Jeetan Pandit, resident of Village- Birnigarrhia (Bhanga), P.S. Barahat, District- Banka. --------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Tara Devi, Wife of Laxman Das, resident of Village-Pathara, P.S. Barahat, District- Banka. -----------Opposite party --------------------- Counsel for the Petitioner:- Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate. Satyaveer, Advocate Counsel for the Vigilance:- Manish Kumar, Advocate Counsel for the State:- A. M. P. Mehta, A.P.P. ------------------------ 13. 10.03.2011 The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order of Banka (Barahat) P.S. Case No. 314 of 2007 registered on 3.10.2007 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (A), B of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The allegation for the first information report is that the Mukhiya of the village has demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner for appointing her on the post of “Sewika” although his name was above in the panel. It is further alleged that on several occasions the Mukhiya had approached the informant and her husband for payment of illegal gratification. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is a man of the Mukhiya and come to the house of the informant opposite party no. 2 and threatened her with dire consequences for non payment of the said amount. 2 3. For exactly the same allegations, a case was instituted at Bhagalpur S.C./ S.T. Bhagalpur P.S. Case No. 31 of 2007 dated 2.10.2007. The allegations are the same and are under Section 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (X) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. 4. Time was granted to learned counsel for the Vigilance to take instruction in this matter. It is settled law that for the same offences having the same allegations, a case cannot be registered as it would amount to double jeopardy. 5. This Court comes to the definite finding that the allegations are almost verbatim the same and as such there is no justification for instituting two cases for the same offence. As a result the latter case would have to be quashed on the basis of well settled law with respect of the matter laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerla & Ors. reported in A.I.R. (2001) 6 SCC 181. If during investigation some relevant material comes on record a supplementary charger sheet can always be submitted to the Court. 6. In the result the Banka ( Barahat) P.S. Case No. 314 of 2007 dated 3.10.2007 is quashed and the application is allowed. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)