Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Brajraj Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
C.M.P. (Criminal) No. 1748 of 2018
Decided On : 02-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Nahar Singh, Pankaj Sisodia, Rajendra Singh Tanwar, Sandeep Maheshwari
Registration of a second FIR for the same offence and transaction is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - SECTION 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170, 173(2), 173(8) - QUASHING OF FIR - SAME OFFENCE - SAME TRANSACTION - SECOND FIR - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ABUSE OF POWER - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT - PROTEST PETITION - DISTINGUISHING EARLIER FINAL REPORT - DETAILED SPEAKING ORDER - LIBERTY TO ASSAIL EARLIER FINAL REPORT - DISPOSAL OF PETITION:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.38/2018, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B and 406 IPC, alleging that the same allegations were made in an earlier FIR, No.612/2015, in which a final report in negative form was submitted, opining that the dispute was civil in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned FIR was registered for the same offence and transaction as the earlier FIR, in which a final report in negative form had been accepted by the trial court. The court held that registration of a second FIR for the same offence and transaction is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether a second FIR can be registered for the same offence and transaction, in which a final report in negative form has been accepted by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348, which held that registration of a second FIR for the same offence and transaction is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that the investigating officer can file a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the first FIR, and the complainant can file a protest petition to demonstrate that the dispute is not civil in nature.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned FIR, subject to liberty to the investigating officer to file a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the first FIR. The court also granted liberty to the complainant to distinguish or assail the acceptance of the earlier final report in negative form.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.38/2018, dated 22.01.2018 registered at Police Station Kekri, Ajmer for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B and 406 IPC. Present FIR has been lodged by Gopal S/o Balal. FIR lodged by him is annexed with the present petition as Annexure-4.
2. Complainant-Respondent No.2 Gopal in the impugned FIR stated that the complainant on 14.03.2012 had purchased Plot Nos.33 and 34 through registered sale deed from Brijraj Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, Smt. Praveen Kanwar W/o Brijraj Singh and Jaivardhan Singh S/o Brijraj Singh. The complainant stated that above-said accused in order to cheat the complainant executed a forged document regarding sale of the land.
3. This Court on 11.04.2018 had passed the following order:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier at the instance of complainant, FIR No.612/2015 was registered at Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC and in the said FIR, Final Report in negative form was submitted opining that the dispute if any is civil in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequently on self-same allegations, impugned FIR No. 38/2018 dated 22.1.2018 was registered at the same police station for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 120B and 406 IPC.
Issue notice to the respondents for 2.5.2018. Process Dasti also.
List this case 2.5.2018."
4. Today Mr. Nahar Singh, S.I./Investigating Officer is present in Court. He has not denied that on the same allegations in earlier FIR lodged by different complainant final report in negative form has been submitted by giving an opinion that dispute is civil in nature.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the same offence pertaining to similar transaction the investigating agency cannot give two different opinions.
6. Be that as it may, it is not denied by the Counsel for the petitioner, Investigating Officer and Counsel for the complainant that final report submitted in negative form in FIR lodged by another complainant has been accepted by the trial Court.
7. It will be appropriate to reproduce following observations made by the Supreme Court in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348:
"37. This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T. Anthony, this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The following conclusion in paragraph Nos. 19, 20 and 27 of that judgment are relevant which read as under:
19. The scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion Under Section 169 or 170 Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned Under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. From the above discussion it follows that under the sc
