Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Md. Abdul Halim son of Late Salimuddin - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11048 of 2017
Decided On : 13-04-2018
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 154, 162, 169, 170, 173(2), 173(8) of Cr.P.C. - The court examined the legal issue of whether the subsequent FIR, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, would be maintainable. The court rationalized the facts and circumstances of each case and applied the test of 'sameness' to find out whether both first information reports relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence or are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two different occurrences. The court held that there cannot be a second first information report in respect of the same offence and that further investigation is permissible, but fresh investigation or re-investigation is not permissible. The court set aside the impugned order and treated the charge-sheet as a further report in the original case, directing the Magistrate to consider it as such and pass appropriate orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order summoning him to face trial under the Arms Act. The petitioner argued that the first information report (FIR) was bad in law as it amounted to a second FIR in respect of the same incident for which the FIR was already registered earlier. The State contended that the allegations made in the subsequent FIR were distinct from the earlier FIR and that the police had the duty to investigate and submit a report before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent FIR was not permissible in law and was hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the charge-sheet to be treated as a further report in the original case, to be considered by the Magistrate and pass appropriate orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the subsequent FIR, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, would be maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rationalized the facts and circumstances of each case and applied the test of 'sameness' to find out whether both first information reports relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence or are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two different occurrences. The court held that there cannot be a second first information report in respect of the same offence and that further investigation is permissible, but fresh investigation or re-investigation is not permissible.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and treated the charge-sheet as a further report in the original case, directing the Magistrate to consider it as such and pass appropriate orders.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Bakhri P.S. Case No.232 of 2014 by which finding a prima facie case to be made out under Section 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act the petitioner has been summoned to face trial.
3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that institution of the first information report (for short ‘the FIR’) itself is bad in law as the same amounts to second FIR in respect of same incident for which the FIR was already registered earlier. He submitted that since the entire investigation conducted by the police after institution of the second FIR was bad in law, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioner to face trial.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the allegations made in the first information report are distinct from the FIR instituted earlier. He submitted that it is the bounden duty of the police to investigate a case and on completion of investigation to submit a report before the court. According to him, on completion of investigation, when the police submitted their report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate finding a prima facie case to be made out against the petitioner rightly took cognizance of the offence and summoned him to face trial.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The facts of the case, in brief, are that an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Suresh Yadav lodged a written report on 25.07.2014 addressed to the Police Inspector-cum- S.H.O., Bakhri Police Station stating therein inter alia that he is the investigating officer of Bakhri Police Station Case No.320 of 2013 dated 09.12.2013 lodged for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and 25(1- B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act which was instituted on the basis of written report submitted by Md. Halim (petitioner) wherein he had alleged that Md. Moazzam and three other named accused persons along with three unknown miscreants surrounded him and while hurling abuses snatched rupees eighty six thousand from his pocket on the point of pistol and on raising alarm they fled away leaving the pistol. The informant in Bakhri P.S. Case No.320 of 2013 had handed over the loaded pistol while lodging the case which was seized and a production-cum-seizure list was prepared. He has further alleged that during investigation and the supervision in Bakhri P.S. Case No.320 of 2013 it transpired that the loaded pistol produced by the petitioner at the police station on the date of occurrence did not belong to the accused rather the same was planted by the informant himself and he had mischievously produced the loaded pistol with motive to make the case more serious. It has further been stated in the written report that the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai vide Memo No.4957/C.R. dated 11.07.2014 directed him to submit final report in Bakhri P.S. Case No.320 of 2013 showing the case untrue and to submit a proposal for prosecution against the informant under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC and to register a case against the petitioner under Section 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Bakhri P.S. Case No.232 of 2014 dated 25.07.2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act.
8. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner vide Charge-sheet No
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
