Back
KARDAK ETE
Mapikam Tega S/o Shri Jingliang Tega – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Ms. M.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the FIR, registered as Anini P.S. Case No. 04/2023, under Sections 9/39/51(C) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, against the petitioner.
3. The case, in brief, is that a written FIR has been lodged against the petitioner before the Officer-in Charge, Roing, Police Station, by one Er. Drone Linggi and Shri Chonga Linggi, the President and General Secretary of All Idu Mishmi Student’s Union (AIMSU) on 07.03.2012, inter alia, alleging that Shri Mapikam Tega (petitioner herein), and his accomplice Md. Jakir Hussain are partners and hunters by profession, engaged in hunting and killing of Kasturi (Musk Dear), Tiger and Elephant for many years. During the raid, Shri Mapikam Tega had jumped from the vehicle and escaped the arrest, thereafter, he has lodged an FIR in Tezu, Police Station, stating that his vehicle bearing registration No. AS-23 V2160 was stolen, whereas, as per the information, it is his second ha
The court ruled that a second FIR is permissible if it pertains to different incidents, emphasizing the need for wildlife protection under the law.
A second FIR for the same incident is impermissible under law unless it pertains to a different cognizable offence or occurrence.
FIR quashed under Section 528 BNSS as counter-blast to petitioner's prior complaint alleging outraging modesty, per Bhajan Lal Category 7, due to unexplained six-day delay and mala fide intent amid l....
The principle of non-registration of two FIRs for the same offence and against the same accused persons is based on the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation, and to prevent a....
A second FIR is permissible if it presents a different version of the same incident, allowing for new discoveries to be considered.
Multiple FIRs arising from distinct allegations are permissible under the law, and quashing is not warranted if separate offences are disclosed.
The court held that an FIR alleging cognizable offences cannot be quashed merely based on claims of disability or false implication; the truth of allegations is to be assessed at trial.
Subsequent FIRs may be permissible if they relate to distinct incidents or reveal new findings, even if arising from the same transaction.
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
