Back
2012 Supreme(Gau) 953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ITANAGAR BENCH)
IQBAL AHMED ANSARI, J.
Anung Welly (Gamlin) – Appellants
Vs.
State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. – Respondent
WP (C) No. 11(AP) of 2012
Decided On: 09.08.2012
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. P.K. Tiwari and Mr.L. Saxena
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. N. Lowang, Addl. Sr. Government counsel and Mr. D. Lazi
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 468 /471 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Cognizable offence - First Information Report - Respondent when a First Information Report lodged by respondent who claim to be social activists alleging that appointment of present petitioner had been obtained on basis of forged documents was declined to be registered by officer-in-Charge Police Station respondent came to this Court by way of a writ petition made under Article 226 of Constitution of India for necessary directions to be issued to respondents particularly Officer-in-Charge Police Station to register said FIR and on a direction issued by this Court FIR so lodged was registered against present writ petitioner and matter is under investigation - Held, In light of law discussed above this Court is of firm view that refusal by Officer-in-Charge Police Station to register FIR lodged by present petitioner is wholly against law laid down in that behalf - First Information Report must be entertained and registered according to relevant provisions of law irrespective of its numbers even if FIRs relate to the same incident provided that FIRs disclose different versions of same incident or else concept of cross-case and/or counter-case would cease to exist - Disinclination or refusal on part of State respondents in present case to register FIR which was lodged by present petitioner is wholly illegal and it is therefore in interest of justice directed that respondent Officer-in-Charge Police Station shall on basis of FIR lodged by present petitioner register a case under appropriate penal provisions and investigate case and do the needful in terms of law contained in that behalf - Writ petition disposed of
Key Points: - The FIRs may both be entertained if they disclose different versions of the same incident; otherwise, a second FIR may be quashed (!) (!) (!) - An FIR is an important document that sets the machinery of criminal law in motion; multiple informations may be given and are recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C. after investigation begins (!) - If the second FIR presents a different version or reveals new discoveries, it is permissible to register and investigate; the Court can direct separate investigation for distinct offences or aspects (!) (!) - The petitioner’s FIR should be registered and investigated by the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station; the refusal to register is illegal (!) (!) - The case cites Nirmal Singh Kahlon (2009) 1 SCC 441 and Shivshankar Singh (2012) 1 SCC 130 as influencing authorities on cross-/counter-case concepts (!) (!) - The writ petition is disposed of with directions to register the petitioner’s FIR and investigate under appropriate penal provisions; no costs (!)
What is the legality of registering a second FIR arising from the same incident when the versions differ?
What is the controlling principle regarding cross-case or counter-case in FIR registrations under Cr.P.C.?
What directions did the court issue regarding registration and investigation of the FIR lodged by the petitioner?
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N. Lowang, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. D. Lazi, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. When a First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), lodged by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, who claim to be social activists, alleging that the appointment of the present petitioner had been obtained on the basis of forged documents, was declined to be registered by the officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came to this Court, by way of a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for necessary directions to be issued to the respondents, particularly, the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, to register the said FIR, and, on a direction issued by this Court, the FIR, so lodged, was registered against the present writ petitioner and the matter is under investigation.
2. While the investigation of the case, so lodged by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 was still in progress, the present petitioner had filed an FIR making allegations of forgery, etc., including offence of making evidence disappear, against respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. As the FIR, which the present petitioner had lodged, was refused to be registered by the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar Police Station, on the ground that since the earlier FIR already stood registered as Itanagar Police Station Case No. 72/2011, under Section 468 /471 IPC, against, amongst others, the present petitioners, the question of registering another FIR, at the behest of the petitioner, who was an accused in the earlier FIR, would be illegal and is impermissible in law.
3. The question, which, now, arises for determination is: Whether it is permissible, in law, to have two different FIRs registered arising out of the same incident or occurrence?
4. While considering the question, posed above, it needs to be noted that an FIR, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., is an important document inasmuch an FIR is registered if the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. Ordinarily, therefore, the Officer-in-Charge of a police station is bound, in law, to register an FIR. When a subsequent FIR is lodged and the Officer-in-Charge finds that it relates to the same incident, he may refuse to register the subsequent FIR. However, when, as regards the same incident, the subsequent FIR gives a different version or, to put it a little differently, a version, different from the one in the earlier FIR, then, the second FIR cannot be refused to be entertained and registered by the Investigating Agency, or else, the concept of counter-case or cross-case would cease to exist. A reference, in this regard, may be made to the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441, wherein the Supreme Court, while dealing with this aspect of law, held, at paragraph 67 of its decision, as under:
67. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there are different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.
5. In the light of the decision, in Nirmal Singh Kahlon's case (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court, in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, at paragraphs 20 and 21, thus;
20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the
