P.R. Bora, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. A very short question has been raised in the present petition as to whether two First Information Reports in respect of the same transaction are permissible.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice the written complaint filed by respondent no.2 to the Police Inspector, Begampura Police Station, Aurangabad (Shahar), on 2.11.2013. Learned Counsel further brought to our notice the endorsement made below the said application by the Duty Officer, Police Station, Begampura, Aurangabad ( Shahar). The endorsement reveals that the said FIR was entered into Station Diary at Sr.No.306/2013, entry No.51, at 21.50 hours. The endorsement further reveals that on orders of the Police Inspector, the matter is handed over for further inquiry to Beat Head constable Bhakare, Bakkal No.2097. Learned Counsel then brought to our notice the FIR registered at Police Station, Begampura, on 3.11.2013, for the offenses punishable under Sections 363, 511, 392 and 34 of IPC. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the complaint on the basis of which the said FIR has been registered at Begampura Police Station. The complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 herein on 3.11.2013. Learned Counsel submitted that both the complaints are arising out of the incident alleged to have happened on 2.11.2013 in the period between 8 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.

4. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 brought to the notice of the Court that the typed copy of the FIR dated 2.11.2013, placed on record by the petitioners at page No.31 of the petition, is incorrect, and intentionally, two names i.e. of Bhausaheb Mokale and Shivraj Ubale have not been mentioned which are appearing in the FIR lodged in the Police Station on 2.11.2013. Learned Counsel placed on record copy of the said FIR. Thereupon, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a typographical mistake has occurred while getting typed the said FIR. He submitted that names of Bhausaheb Mokale and Shivraj Ubale have not been intentionally omitted but that is an inadvertent mistake.

5. We have carefully gone through the written complaint filed by respondent no.2 on 2.11.2013 and the complaint dated 3.11.2013. Both the complaints are arising out of the incident stated to have happened on 2.11.2013 at about 8 pm to 8.15 p.m. The spot of occurrence as has been stated in both the complaints is also the same. As mentioned earlier, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has also placed on record copy of the complaint filed by respondent no.2 on 2.11.2013 bearing endorsement and seal of Police Station, Begampura, acknowledging receipt of the said complaint and further endorsement to which we have referred hereinabove.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that on 2.11.2013, immediately after occurrence of the alleged incident, respondent no.2 has lodged report with Police Station, Begampura, and on 3.11.2013, his statement was recorded by the Police. Learned Counsel submitted that while lodging the FIR since respondent no.2 was in frightened condition, he could not state all the particulars in regard to the incident occurred which he has elaborately stated on 3.11.2013 in his statement recorded by the Police. Learned Counsel submitted that nothing wrong has been committed by the Police in registering an offense based on the report given by respondent no.2 on 3.11.2013 which contains sufficient particulars pertaining to the incident occurred on 2.11.2013.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that no two First Information Reports are permissible in connection with the same incident. To substantiate his contention, learned Counsel has placed his reliance on two judgments of the Supreme C