Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 2003
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Banwari Lal Sharma, J.
Smt. Anokhi Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and another - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5522 of 2015.
Decided On : 30-11-2015
For the Petitioner:Umesh Vyas, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N.S. Dhakad, PP, PC. Sharma, Dileep Singh, Advocate, SI, PS Kotwali, District Dausa.
A subsequent FIR cannot be maintained when the same allegations have already been made in a previous FIR which resulted in a negative final report and dismissal of the protest petition.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 156(3) - QUASHING OF FIR - SAME ALLEGATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT FIR - FINALITY OF NEGATIVE FINAL REPORT - SECOND FIR NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged an FIR registered against him for offenses under Sections 420, 209, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the grounds that the same allegations had already been made in a previous FIR (FIR No. 76/2014) which resulted in a negative final report and dismissal of the protest petition filed by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the subsequent FIR (FIR No. 613/2015) were almost similar to those in the previous FIR (FIR No. 76/2014) and that the negative final report in the previous FIR had attained finality. Therefore, the court held that the subsequent FIR was not maintainable.
Issues: Whether a subsequent FIR can be maintained when the same allegations have already been made in a previous FIR which resulted in a negative final report and dismissal of the protest petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that once a negative final report is submitted by the police and accepted by the court, the allegations in the FIR attain finality and cannot be re-opened in a subsequent FIR. The court also considered the fact that the complainant had the liberty to raise his objections in defense during the proceedings pending under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the subsequent FIR (FIR No. 613/2015) on the grounds that it was not maintainable.
The legal document discusses the principle that a subsequent FIR based on the same allegations as a previous FIR is not maintainable if the earlier FIR resulted in a negative final report and the protest petition was dismissed, thereby attaining finality. The court emphasized that once the police submit a negative final report and it is accepted by the court, the allegations in the FIR are considered finalized and cannot be reopened through a new FIR for the same matter (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the petitioner had previously lodged FIR No. 76/2014, which was investigated and resulted in a negative final report, with the protest petition dismissed. Subsequently, a new FIR (No. 613/2015) was filed on essentially the same allegations. The court held that this second FIR was not maintainable because the allegations had already been examined and finalized in the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the court quashed the second FIR, reaffirming the principle that a final negative report in an earlier FIR precludes the re-initiating of the same accusations through a subsequent FIR (!) .
The court also noted that while the second FIR was not maintainable, the complainant retains the right to raise objections in defense during proceedings under other sections of law, such as those pending before the Family Court (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of finality in criminal investigations and the legal doctrine that prevents re-litigation of the same allegations once they have been conclusively decided in prior proceedings.
"U;k;ky; eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~zsV nkSlk txnh'k izlkn iks"koky iq= Jh izgykn tkfr xqtZj fuoklh ljZ iqfyl Fkkuk ukaxy jktkorku ftyk nkSlk ifjoknh cuke 1- Jherh vuks[khnoh iq=h Jh ukjk;.k iwoZ iRuh txnh'k izlkn gky iRuh jkeorkj xqtZj fuoklh :ikMh jsoklh rglhy uknksrh ftyk djkSyh gky fuoklh ikuh dh Vadh ds ikl lkseukFk uxj] nkSlk] 2- jkeorkj xqtZj v/;kikd [kqnZ cSjkMk rglhy fldjk; ftyk nkSlk vfHk;qDr@ifjokn vUrxZr /kkjk 190 lhvkjihlh vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 209 ,oa 120&ch Hkk0na0la0 egksn; ifjokn i= fuEu is'k gS& ;g fd ifjoknh o eqyfte uEcj 1 dks fookg rkjh[k 16-05-2003 dks :ikMh jsoklk esa gqvk FkkA ifjoknh us mlds vR;kpkjksa ls ihfM+r gksdj ftyk U;k;ky; nkSlk ls fnukad 01-07-2008 dks fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh izkIr dj yh FkhA mlds ckn Hkh vuks[kh nsoh ifjoknh o mlds ifjokjtu dks ijs'kku djus ds fy, >wBs eqdnes ntZ djkrh jghA ;g gS fd blds i'pkr~ vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 us vfHk;qDr la[;k 2 ls ukrk izFkk ls fookg dj fy;k] tcfd og iwoZ esa fookfgr gSA vuks[kh nsoh us jkeorkj ds lEcU/kksa ls ,d yM+dk Hkh iSnk gks pqdk gS tks djhc lok Ms<+ o"kZ dk gS ftls ysdj og nkSlk esa jg jgh gSA ;g gS fd mDr lHkh ckrksa ds gksrs gq, Hkh vuks[kh nsoh us izkFkhZ ls /kks[kk/kM+h o tkylkthiwoZd jde ,saBus dh xtZ ls feF;k Hkj.k iks"k.k izkIr djus ds fy, izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 125 lhvkjihlh is'k dj fn;k tks xzke U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS ftlesa fnukad 13-08-2015 dks vUrfje xqtkjk HkRrk nsus ds vkns'k ikfjr Qjek fn;sA ;g gS fd eqyfte ds bl d'R; ls pUnz flag xqtZj o X;kjlhyky vkfn Hkh 'kkfey gSa ftUgksaus vkijkf/kd "kM;a= o Ny esa Hkkx fy;k gSA ;g gS fd izkFkhZ us bl lEcU/k esa fjiksVZ ntZ djokus ds fy, ,l0,p0vks0 nkSlk ds ;gka izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k rFkk ,l0ih0 lkgc nkSlk dks Hkh fyf[kr esa fuosnu fd;k] fdUrq mUgksaus dksbZ fjiksVZ ntZ ugha dh vkSj u gh dksbZ dk;Zokgh dhA jftLVMZ ,0Mh0 dh jlhn ifjokn ds lkFk layXu gSA blfy, ifjokn is'k djuk vko';d gqvk gSA ;g gS fd vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 us vfHk;qDr la[;k 2 ds lkFk o vU;ksa ds lkFk vkijkf/kd "kM;a= o tkylkth dj izkFkhZ ls :i;s ,saBus ds fy, feF;k Hkj.k iks"k.k dk nkok is'k fd;k gS tks mDr /kkjkvksa esa n.Muh; vijk/k gSA vr% ifjokn i= e; 'kiFk i= is'k dj fuosnu gS fd iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh nkSlk dks ifjokn /kkjk 156(3) tkIrk QkStnknh esa Hkstdj eqdnek ntZ djus ds vkns'k Qjekos o vuks[kh nsoh jkeorkj o muds yM+ds dks Mh,u, tkap djokdj izkFkhZ ifjoknh dks U;k; fnykus o nksf"k;ksa ds f[kykQ l[r dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dj nf.Mr djus dh d'ik djsaA"
