Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Eknath S/o Rangnath Kadam and Ors. - Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4222 OF 2016
Decided On : 08-03-2017
It is true that law does not permit second FIR for the same cause of action, only because the principle of law does not allow that the person should be vexed twice. But, if there are offences having different and distinct character and ingredients, even if there are some overlapping features, it would not violate the principles of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
The subsequent FIR filed by the first informant `D` should be treated as separate FIR for all purpose including the investigation under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code the canvas of impugned two FIRs, are totally different and not identical one. The subsequent FIR pertains to allegation of offence under Atrocities Act, which are serious in nature. It has such magnitude, that does not fall within the ambit and scope of inquiry of the FIR recorded first.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154-Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 341-SC/ST Act, 1989, Section 3(1), 3(2)(v)-Constitution of India, Article 20-Second FIR.-Second FIR pertaining to allegations of offence under Atrocities Act, not falls within ambit and scope of inquiry of first recorded FIR in respect of rioting, is maintainable.
Court is not inclined to quash and set aside subsequent FIR giving rise to crime No. 81 of 2016 for the charges of castiest abuses etc. It would not justifiable to prohibit the aggrieved victim of the crime to lodge separate FIR for commission of distinct cognizable offence.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 333, 336, 353, 504 and 506- Prevention of Damages to P.P. Act, Section 3-SC and ST Act, Section 3(1)(v), 3(c)(v)-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154-Castiest allegations in Riot.-Since accused levelled castiest allegations to insult and humiliate informant and his associates within public view hence FIR not liable to be quashed.
In the present case, the information of commission of offence under Atrocities Act came to be lodged on receipt of first information report from the informant `D`, who has an legitimate right to file FIR being members of SC/ST community and one of the victim of crime. The object of commission of crime shown in subsequent FIR was not similar as compare to the earlier FIR. In such eventuality in case, he is not allowed to filed FIR for investigation, it would cause injustice and prejudice to the real victim of the crime and he may be precluded from seeking justice. Therefore, subsequent FIR is essential to be investigated separately to collect the evidence separately by the Investigating Officer so that the aggrieved victim would not be deprived of justice. The involvement of number of different accused and distinct nature of allegations made in the FIR registered later-on, are indicative of the fact that there would not be any attempt to make improvement in the allegation that find place in the FIR recorded first.
K.K. Sonawane, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.
2. The applicants, taking recourse of remedy under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”), assailed the validity, legality and propriety of the registration of First Information Report (for short “FIR”) vide crime No. 81 of 2016 being an second FIR relating to the same cause of action, same incident and occurred during the same transaction. The applicants prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR vide Crime No. 81 of 2016 registered at Ardhapur Police Station, District Nanded, for the offence punishable under sections 307, 341, 336, 324, 506, 147, 148 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short “IPC”) and 3(1)(R)(5) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”).
3. The facts giving rise to the present application in brief are that on the day of incident occurred on 03-05-2016, the members of the scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community (for short “SC/ST”) were celebrating 125th Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in the village. They had also obtained legal permission for procession from concerned authority. But some of the villagers of upper caste raised objection for celebration and procession of 125th Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. It created communal tension and fragile atmosphere in the village. Therefore, Police Bandobast was deployed to monitor the law and order problem. A programme of celebrating 125th Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was commenced in the village since noon hours at about 12.00 on 03-05-2016. It has been alleged that the applicant Eknath Rangnath Kadam (corrected name Eknath s/o Rangrao Kadam), Chairman and applicant – Bhagwan Bhimrao Kadam, Sarpanch of the village and their accomplices were opposing to celebrate Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in the village. They started instigating and provoking the villagers. The police personnel deployed on Bandobast duty made endeavour to give them understanding to refrain themselves from spreading hatred against members of SC/ST community in the village. But they were not in a condition to listen. They were also giving threats that, in case, any penal action is initiated against them, they will take law in their hands and set the entire village on fire. However, at 4.15 p.m. applicant Eknath Kadam, Chairman and applicant - Bhagwan Bhimrao, Sarpanch of the village and their accomplices in all 400 to 500 in numbers formed the unlawful assembly with an object to assault members of SC/ST community of the village and to prevent them from celebrating 125th Anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in the village. They started pelting stones on the police. In order to disperse the miscreants police applied 'lathi-charge' and made endeavour to control the mob. But the mob became berserk and started causing damages to the police vehicle. They smashed the glasses of Police Vehicle. It cause communal tension in the village. Police opened the fire and lobbed tear gas cells towards the mob. But, all efforts of police found unavailing. In the riot some of the Police Personnel received serious injuries. The miscreants flung the boulder on the head of the Police Personnel from roof of the house. Police fired empty bullet (dummy round) as well as rubber bullet. But, the miscreants gave threats to life to the Police. They were armed with iron pipes, sticks and stones etc. Eventually, Police opened the fire from rifle of Police Personnel. Thereafter, the miscreants started escaping from the spot. The police apprehended some of the miscreants red handed on the spot. Police Inspector Shri Satish Dattatraya Gaikwad, who was on duty for Bandobast in the village returned to the Police Station and on the following day i.e. on 04-05-2016 at about 10.26 a.m. he filed the FIR for penal action against applicants and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
