Ahsanuddin Amanullah JUDGMENT
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Shashikant and Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Sudama Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for the following relief:
"That this is an application for quashing the order dated 03-12-2013 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri passed in compliant case No. 183 of 2013, whereby and where under the said learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences u/s. 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, upon the complaint of the complainant. Since the Complainant has most maliciously suppressed the fact that the first information report, bearing Chakan (Pune) P.S. Case No. -190/2013 dated 09-06-2013 was already instituted for the said occurrence in which charge sheet No. -72/2014 dated 07-03-2014 has already been filed against the Petitioner under section 302, 307, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code; AND/OR
For issuance of any other order/orders, direction/directions, as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned herein below."
3. The allegation in the compliant filed by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner is of killing the daughter of the opposite party No. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner, in the State of Maharashtra.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 having been burnt in a natural accident, he had got her admitted in a hospital in Chakan (Pune) in the State of Maharashtra and he was the informant of Chakan (Pune) P.S. Case No. 190 of 2013 dated 09.06.2013. It was submitted that he, being the husband, made best efforts to see that she was properly treated but despite her being referred to Sanjivani Hospital in Pune, she succumbed to her injuries. It was submitted that though the petitioner was the informant, but due to connivance of the police with the opposite party No. 2, he was made an accused and in fact the opposite party No. 2 is a chargesheet witness. Learned counsel submitted that the opposite party No. 2 is fully aware of such development and suppressing the same, he filed the present compliant case before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri in the district of Rohtas, being Complaint Case No. 183 of 2013, on 21.06.2013. Learned counsel submitted that in the same, such fact of there already being a police case in Maharashtra having been suppressed, the complaint itself is fit to be dismissed. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shashi Kant Tiwari vs. State of Bihar reported as MANU/BH/0169/2011 : 2011 (3) PLJR 214, the relevant being at paragraph No. 5. It was further submitted that for the same offence/occurrence two cases cannot proceed at the same time and, thus, there already being an F.I.R. for the same incident in Maharashtra, the present complaint case is not sustainable.........