Proceedings Under Sections 107 And 117 Cr.P.C. Are Preventive In Nature And Do Not Attract Bar Of Double Jeopardy: J&K&L High Court

The Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a charge sheet, holding that the purpose of preventive proceedings and proceedings initiated pursuant to an FIR are entirely different, and that mere previous enmity between the parties cannot lead to the presumption that the alleged incident did not take place.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the charge sheet emanating out of FIR bearing for offences under Sections 451, 354, 323, 34 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station, Akhnoor, Jammu. The FIR originated from a complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor, which directed the Station House Officer to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint.

The petition was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who observed,

“The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is misconceived because proceedings under sections 107 and 117 Cr.P.C. are preventive in nature and not punitive in nature. Registration of FIR and filing of the challan in respect of an incident giving rise to a criminal offence is aimed at punishing an offender.”

Background

A complaint was filed by respondent No. 4 before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor, alleging that the petitioners trespassed into the residential house of the complainant during the night and started using filthy language against her. When they were asked to leave the spot, the petitioners instead started beating her. The Magistrate directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Akhnoor, to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint. Accordingly, FIR for offences under Sections 451, 354, 323, 34 and 511 IPC came to be registered.

After investigation of the case, the Police found that offences under Sections 354 and 511 IPC were not established, whereas offences under Sections 451, 323, 34, 504 and 201 IPC were found established against the petitioners. Accordingly, the charge sheet was laid before the learned trial Magistrate.

The petitioners challenged the charge sheet, stating that a registered Deed of Disinheritance was executed disinheriting respondent No. 4 and another person, and that the complaint was lodged out of vengeance.

It was contended that the Police had filed a complaint under Sections 107 and 117 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor, on the basis of an application filed by respondent No. 4 for the same incident. On this basis, it was contended that the petitioners were being prosecuted and tried twice for the same offence, which was impermissible in law and violative of Article 20 of the Constitution.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that the main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners for challenging the impugned charge sheet was that for the same incident, respondent No. 4 had filed an application before the Police, on the basis of which the Police filed a complaint under Sections 107 and 117 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class. The Court held that this contention was misconceived because proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 Cr.P.C. are preventive in nature and not punitive in nature.

The Court further observed, “Article 20 of the Constitution, protects a person from double jeopardy and provides that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished twice for the same crime/offence in a court of law. In the present case, the impugned challan has been filed with an aim to punish the petitioners for the alleged occurrence with a view to prevent repetition of similar incident. Therefore, it is not a case of double jeopardy covered by Article 20 of the Constitution.”

The Court noted that the second contention raised by the petitioners was that there was a past history of enmity between the parties, which prompted respondent No. 4 to lodge the complaint. The Court observed that the allegations levelled by respondent No. 4 against the petitioners had culminated into the filing of the charge sheet. After investigation, the Investigating Agency concluded that the allegations stood substantiated by the material collected during the investigation.

It further noted that the statements of the injured as well as other witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case supported the version of the occurrence given in the complaint. The complainant was also subjected to medical check-up during the investigation, and it was found that she had suffered simple injuries on her chest and abdomen.

The Court held,

“In the face of this material, merely because the incident may be a result of previous enmity between the parties, it cannot be presumed that the said incident has not taken place.”

Finding no ground to exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings, the Court dismissed the petition.