1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7778 of 2008 1. MD.IDRISH ANSARI S/O LATE JAN MOHAMMAD ANSARI 2. MD. ISRAIL ANSARI SON OF LATE LAGAN ANSARI --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. JAHANGIR ANSARI -- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Petitioners are accused of Dumra P.S. Case no. 176 of 2004 instituted under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 420 of the Penal Code. They are aggrieved by order dated 13.02.2007 whereby learned Magistrate, on conclusion of enquiry made under Section 202 of the Code, has taken cognizance after having found that there is adequate evidence on record reflecting a prima facie case. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that for the same occurrence a complaint was lodged on 11.3.2002 which was transmitted to the police for institution of case and ultimately an F.I.R. being Riga P.S. Case no. 55 of 2002 under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code was registered whereafter investigation was taken up. Upon conclusion of investigation a final report was submitted by which the petitioners wherein were not sent up for trial since a protest petition was already filed and pending from before the same was treated as the complaint and the learned Magistrate after making enquiry in terms of the provision of the Code found that a prima facie case was made out and accordingly cognizance was 2 taken. Said matter is pending in the Court. It is the contention of the petitioners that for one occurrence two sets of prosecutions have been launched. Brother of one of the witnesses of 1st complaint lodged the subsequent case. The challenge is made on that ground alone. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. In spite of service of notice, the complainant/informant (opposite party no.2) has not appeared in the present proceedings to contest the present application. Law is settled that for one occurrence there cannot be two criminal proceedings. Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates a situation where for the same offence a complaint case and a police investigation have been initiated. Here is a case where two complaints relating to the same occurrence have been launched and the Court below has taken cognizance in both the matters. In that view of the facts appearing from record, this Court is satisfied that the present proceeding which was launched subsequent to the first one requires to be interfered with. Consequently the impugned order dated 13.02.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, in Dumra P.S. case no. 176 of 2004, G.R. No. 175 of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)