Preventive proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 CrPC do not bar criminal prosecution on double-jeopardy grounds.

Respondent No. 4 complained that the petitioners trespassed into her home, assaulted her and, as to two petitioners, attempted to outrage her modesty.

On her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate directed registration of an FIR.

After investigation, the police found the allegations under Sections 354 and 511 IPC unsubstantiated, but filed a charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 451, 323, 34, 504 and 201 IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet, contending that a separate complaint arising from the same incident had led to preventive proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 Cr.P.C., and that prior family and property disputes showed the criminal complaint was motivated by enmity.

The complainant was the daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 1; the petitioners also relied on a deed of disinheritance and a civil-suit order concerning the property.

Whether the criminal prosecution was barred by Article 20 of the Constitution because preventive proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 Cr.P.C. had also been initiated in relation to the same incident.

Whether the prior enmity between the parties, including the family and property disputes, justified quashing the charge sheet as a false or retaliatory prosecution.

Article 20 of the Constitution protects a person from being prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence.

Proceedings under Sections 107 and 117 Cr.P.C. are preventive in nature, whereas criminal proceedings following registration of an FIR are punitive in nature; their different purposes mean that the simultaneous existence of such proceedings does not, by itself, establish double jeopardy.

The Court also considered whether the investigative material supported the allegations when deciding whether to exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings.

The Court rejected the double-jeopardy argument because the Sections 107 and 117 proceedings were preventive, while the charge sheet sought criminal punishment; the two proceedings therefore served different purposes.

It also found that the existence of prior enmity did not establish that the incident had not occurred.

The investigation had produced statements from the complainant and other witnesses supporting the alleged occurrence, medical evidence of simple injuries to the complainant’s chest and abdomen, and witness statements supporting the alleged trespass.

On that material, the Court found no basis to quash the proceedings merely because the parties had a prior dispute.

It dismissed the petition for lack of merit.