Kapu Karianna and Others vs R. Kodappa and Another

A.D. Reddy, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 561-A, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 18 of 1973 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madakasira.

This case was taken on file for an offence under Sections 147 and 323, I.P.C. The allegations in the complaint are that on 7-12-1972 at about 4-00 P.M. when one Mudlappa came into the middle of the village of Dokkalapalli from his fields, A-1 to A-5 along with A-6 to A-21 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, while A-l to A-5 caught hold of the said Mudlappa and pushed him. A-l and A-2 beat him with hands and legs expressing their resentment over his lending his services to the other party and while being beaten, as he cried -aloud, the complainant and one Nedudi Thimma Charla came running there and intervened, that then A-6 and A-7 standing on the open terrace of Doddlingappagari Basappa. nearby pelted stones on the head and right shoulder joint of the complainant and in the meantime the brother of the complainant went to his rescue when A-8 to A-10 pelted stones at him, that hearing the cries of K. Kari-appa, Golla Nagappa rushed to the scene followed by Sriram.appa Sanna Basappa, that thereupon A-11 who was pear the Peepal tree beat Golla Nagappa on his head with Paka Debba and caused bleeding injury on his head, that A-12 to A-14 standing on the open terrace of Rangaji nearby pelted stones on Kapu Sriram-appa and caused bleeding injuries on his head that in the meantime Kapu Sanna Basappa who was there, was fisted with stones by A-15. A-15 and A-17 on his back and other places and thereafter A-18 to A-21 also came to the scene and pelted stones, that meanwhile others interfered and the quarrel subsided.

The accused have now come forward with this petition saying that Mudlappa who was said to have been first assaulted, had filed a private complaint which was registered as C. C. No. 3 of 1973 on the file of the same Magistrate and as this case had been withdrawn by him u/s 248, Cr.P.C. and the accused were acquitted, that the acquittal operates as a bar for further prosecution u/s 403, Cr.P.C. and therefore the present proceedings must be quashed.

The above contention is not tenable. The case, C. C. No. 3 of 1973 was taken on file on the complaint of Mudlappa and for an offence relating to the injuries caused to him i. e. the case was taken on file for an offence u/s 323, I.P.C. against A-l to A-5 and against the rest u/s 323 read with Section 109, I.P.C. The acquittal was with regard to those offences only and the complainant, as an injured person has a right to file a petition to withdraw the case and the acquittal can be confined only to those offences for which the case was taken on file. It cannot be said that in an incident of rioting where a number of persons got injured and a complaint filed by one of them is taken on file only with regard to the offence relating to injuries caused to him, an acquittal with regard to that offence would operate as a bar u/s 403, Cr. P. C, for the prosecution of all other offences also. Everyone injured in a rioting has a grievance and can launch criminal proceedings. If the complaint and the proceedings cover the entire incident and had been inquired into in respect of all the offences and had resulted in acquittal that would be a good ground for treating it as a bar of Section 403, Cr.P.C. for further prosecution, but in a case like this where only one injured had filed a complaint and the complaint had been taken on file with regard to the offences committed in relation, to him only. Provisions of Section 403, Cr.P.C. will not be a bar, as far as other offences are concerned though committed in the course of the same transaction. This view of mine is supported by the decisions in Kandaswami Pillai v. Executive Officer, Panchayat Board Attur AIR 1947 Mad 306 (1) and G.K. Mazumdar Vs. Mohamad Kasam Mirza and Another, . The decision in Executive Officer v. D. Joseph 1971 Mad LJ (Cri.) 545 : 1972 Cri LJ 801 (Ker.). cited does not apply to the facts of the instant case. In Gopal Chandra Mandal Vs. The State, it was held that u/s 248, Cr.P.C. the trial is not concluded and before a final order is passed, permission is accorded to withdraw from the prosecution the result is a statutory acquittal and such an acquittal, however, does not operate as a bar to the fresh trial on the same facts as Section 403 can be called in aid only when there has been a trial to a close and it is only then that the question of previous acquittal or previous conviction comes into play. Moreover, as already stated in an incident resulting in a number of offences, if for one offence the case had been taken on file and it ends in acquittal, it does not mean that it affects further complaints by the other persons aggrieved with regard to the offences committed in relation to them. The present case had been taken on file under Sections 147 and 323, I.P.C. and therefore has to be enquired into. It is open to the accused who were acquitted of the offences of causing injuries to Mudlappa in C. C. No. 3 of 1973 to take the plea u/s 403, I.P.C. in this case, if they so choose in so far as it relates to offences of causing injuries to said Mudlappa are concerned.

With these remarks, this petition is dismissed.