IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47376 of 2007 SIYARAM SHASTRI, SON OF LATE CHULHAI DUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHIMPUR, P.S.- RUNNI SAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAMKANT CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RADHE CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KOLHANTA PATORI, P.S.- BISANPUR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA- MADIPUR IN THE TOWN OF MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.- KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARUR. 3. SHANTI DEVI, W/O- RAMKANT CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MARIPUR BADHERI TOLA IN THE TOWN OF MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.- KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARUR. ----------- 5 22.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. No body appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Petitioner assails order taking cognizance dated 14.9.2006 passed in Complaint Case no. 1776/2006 whereby cognizance has been taken under diverse Sections of Penal Code including Sections 420 and 384 IPC. Submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that for the said same occurrence, two complaints have been lodged. Earlier a complaint bearing Complaint Case no. 989 of 2006 was lodged on 1.6.2006 by the wife of opposite party no. 2. In the said case, the petitioner and other accused persons like the present case were made accused. An inquiry was made whereafter cognizance under Sections 379, 323, 341 was taken. The processes were directed to be issued only against the wife of the petitioner. Petitioner was thus let off in the said case. Subsequently, on 21.8.2006, opposite party no. 2 filed the 2 present complaint wherein he described the date of occurrence from April 2003 to 20.8.2006. This court perused both the complaints (Annexures - 1 and 2). A perusal of the complaint petition bearing Complaint Case no. 1776/2006, it appears that the complainant herein has alleged several other facts in order to show that in fact he was cheated at the hands of the accused persons and an attempt was also made to extort money. On perusal of the materials on record and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that this is not a case of double jeopardy for the two reasons, firstly, the petitioner, admittedly, is not being proceeded against in Complaint Case no. 989/2006, and secondly, there may be overlapping of the facts in the two complaints but the allegations are different and distinct. Seen thus, this court finds no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )