IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33165 of 1999 1. SADANAND SINGH 2. Akhileshwari Devi … … Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shiv Nandan Singh For the petitioners: Shri R.C.Thakur, Adv. For the State: Shri Yogendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 25.6.2010 The present petition is for quashing the prosecution initiated by filing a complaint petition bearing No.C 134 of 1998 upon which the order of summoning was passed on 18.9.1999 by Shri Ramdarash, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Madhipura. The contention is that for the same offence, a First Information Report was lodged and a full-fledged trial was held in G.R.Case No. 169 of 1983 by a competent court of jurisdiction and the two petitioners were acquitted of the charges. It was submitted that in the light of the provision of Section 300 Cr.P.C. the petitioners could not be tried as the order of acquittal subsists. As may appear from the reading of the judgment passed in G.R. Case No. 169 of 1983, some allegation of forging and fabricating certificates for passing Matriculation Examination was made against the two petitioners and on that basis they were alleged to have obtained employments which allegations are reflected in the above noted complaint petition. The difference is that in the police case the informant was someone else, whereas, the present complaint petition has been 2 filed by one Shiv Nandan Singh, opposite party no.2. Otherwise, there is nothing to make any difference as regards the commission of the offence. The principle of aute fois acquaint get enshrined in Section 300 Cr. P.C.. The language of the provisions is that if an offence has been tried by a competent court and an order of conviction/acquittal has been passed, then the same person could never be tried for the same offence so long as the order of acquittal or conviction was subsisting. The provision does not require any court to consider anything than the commission of an offence by the accused who has either been convicted or acquitted on the same allegation after the competent trial. Who had initiated the prosecution, who deposed in support of the charges and what was the evidence which was led in support or in defence of the charges are never material for consideration as regards the provision of Section 300 Cr. P.C. I have already pointed out that the allegation of committing the offence was same as is presently alleged and the same was tried by a competent court of jurisdiction. Moreover, the judgment discussing all parameters of the evidence on constitution or commission of the offences was passed on 30.11.1993 acquitting the two petitioners of the charges. The complaint petition bearing no. C134 of 1998 was, of course, filed by a different person and an order of summoning was passed on it but when we peruse the allegations the same 3 constitute the same offence which was earlier tried and found not established by the judgment, Annexure-2. In the result, the prosecution which was initiated by filing the complaint petition and by passing the order, as indicated above, on that complaint petition appears completely against the provision of Section 300 of the Cr. P.C. and is an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the whole prosecution is quashed. The petition is allowed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)