Devendra Singh v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

MCRC-4440-2013 (DEVENDRA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 15-10-2015 Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V. Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceeding instituted against him registered vide crime number 2382/2010 by police station Kotwali Sadar, Lalitpur (UP) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468,

471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9-B of the Explosives Act,1884 as well as Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The facts, giving rise to filing of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was having two licences to store explosives. Admittedly, the period of licences of the petitioner was expired and one Jai Prakash, co-accused submitted an application on behalf of the petitioner for renewal of the licences which was pending. On 13.7.2010, the station house officer of police station- Beheriya, district Sagar registered crime number 161/2010 and filed the charge-sheet against eleven persons including the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9-B(b) of the Explosives Act,1884 as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar. Thereafter the police station Kotwali Sadar, Lalitpur (UP) also registered the crime number 2382/2010 on 5.9.2010 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9-B of the Explosives Act,1884 as well as Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against the three accused persons including the petitioner which is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Section

186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has submitted that when two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offences, the proceeding first commenced by the criminal court is tried and subsequent proceeding shall be discontinued. It is further submitted that subsequent proceeding initiated against the petitioner in Lalitpur is liable to be discontinued. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner had restored explosive substances at Sagar and the same were exported from Dhaulpur and Lalitpur and, therefore, offences registered against him are not the same. In this connection, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal and Others, ILR (2014) MP, 3067. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the submissions made by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The first information report was lodged against the petitioner by police station Beheriya, Sagar as well as ten other accused persons on the ground that the petitioner stored explosive substances and transported the same without having any valid licence. The Sub-District Magistrate, Lalitpur and the Regional Officer carried out inspection of Bharat Explosives Limited and found that explosive substances were stored illegally. Thereupon the case was registered. During course of investigation, the present applicant was also arrayed as accused by the station house officer, Lalitpur. Thus, the cases registered at Sagar as well as at Lalitpur are different and the accused persons are also different. It is pertinent to mention here that against the Ganesh Explosives, a case was registered on 13.7.2010 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9-B(b) of the Explosives Act,1884 as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and thereafter another case was registered by police station Kotwali Sadar, Lalitpur (UP) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9-B of the Explosives Act,1884 as well as Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Supreme Court in the case of B.D. Agrawal (supra) in the similar fact situation has held that provision of Section

186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court in the case of B.D. Agrawal (supra), acts and omissions of the petitioner are not the same and, therefore, the provision of Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted to the fact situation of the case. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. (ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE