2019 Supreme(Kar) 1657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, J.
Sri. K.M. Prasad S/o Late Karigowda – Petitioner
Versus
State by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Devaraja Division – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5057 of 2015
Decided On : 19-07-2019

Headnote:

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1854 - Section 3 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 353, 354, 355 and 149 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 – First Information Report – Employment and service - Quash of investigation - Whether FIR and investigation in pursuance of second FIR should be straightaway quashed or should it require a scrutiny during trial on issue of prejudice to accused and truthfulness of evidence collected on basis of second FIR - Whether before or after filing final report under Section 173(2) Criminal Procedure Code - Whether cryptic anonymous and oral messages which do not clearly specify cognizable offence can be treated as FIR and answered question in negative - Undisputed facts leading to above question are that in respect of an incident that took place in premises of Administrative Training Institute at Mysore gunman of respondent No. 2 lodged a written complaint before police - In this complaint he narrated that that an employee of ATI committed suicide and a case of unnatural death was registered - Body of deceased employee was brought to premises of ATI in an Ambulance which was informed to respondent No. 2 - Respondent No. 2 came over and paid respects to dead body - At that juncture persons came to spot in a tempo traveler and started to shout at respondent No. 2 - A few of persons in this assembly were drunk they hit respondent No. 2 at her back with slippers another person hit Respondent No. 2 with hand on her shoulder – Held, It could be deciphered from above decisions that Supreme Court has frowned upon registration of second FIR and consequent investigation thereon for reason that investigation having already started based on first FIR a further complaint against same accused will amount to an improvement on facts which is likely to prejudice accused - Thus it is clear from above ratio that in order to attract mischief of second FIR investigation in first FIR should have been underway or a final report must have been submitted thereon – Sequentially it follows that if investigation is not commenced on first FIR investigation based on second FIR does not get tainted - In none of above decisions this issue had arisen for consideration of Court – Nevertheless what emanates from ratio laid down in above decisions is that it is not registration of multiple complaints but commencement of investigation that makes all difference - Needless to say that registration FIR and investigation are two different stages in a criminal trial - If law laid down by this Court in case is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under Code then in court opinion such conclusion would lead to serious consequences - This will be clear from hypothetical example given herein below if in regard to a crime committed by real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and same is registered by jurisdictional police then aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of incident in question consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring real accused to book - This cannot be purport of code - Thus it is clear from above precedents and scheme of code that there is no inflexible rule that in every case investigation conducted on basis of a second FIR is to be treated as null and void - As in instant case investigating officer having not conducted any investigation into first information report lodged by gunman of respondent No. 2 and before commencement of investigation having submitted a B report to Magistrate in court view merely on ground that first information report was submitted by gunman of respondent No. 2 it cannot be held that investigation conducted is tainted and bad in law - Law undoubtedly is clear that it is always first information report which leads to investigation - If for any reason investigation officer chooses not to investigate into first information report same may call for a scrutiny during trial on issue of prejudice to accused and truthfulness of investigation conducted by investigating officer on basis of second FIR but same cannot be a reason to straightaway quash investigation conducted on basis of second FIR - In instant case as no investigation was conducted court do not find any good ground to uphold contentions urged by learned senior counsel for petitioner - Petition is dismissed.