Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Bhori Lal @ Bhoriya - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 1275 & 693 of 2018
Decided On : 04-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Aditya Sharma, N.S. Dhakad, Prahalad Sharma
A second FIR cannot be registered for the same cause of action when an earlier FIR is pending.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 154, 156, 173, 319, 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - SAME CAUSE OF ACTION - EARLIER FIR PENDING - SECOND FIR NOT MAINTAINABLE - LIBERTY TO FILE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 319 CR.P.C. OR 190 CR.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC, alleging that the same land was the subject of an earlier FIR registered in 2002, and proceedings were pending before a Magistrate's court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second FIR was registered based on the same cause of action as the earlier FIR, and that the rightful course for the complainant was to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the accused named in the second FIR as additional accused in the earlier FIR.
Issues: Whether a second FIR can be registered for the same cause of action when an earlier FIR is pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348, which held that registration of a second FIR in respect of the same offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but also violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court quashed the second FIR, but granted liberty to the complainant to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or 190 Cr.P.C. to implead additional accused in the earlier FIR.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the case FIR No. 39/2018 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC be quashed as qua same land by the same company, through another Director earlier FIR bearing No. 106/2002 was registered and the proceedings arising thereof are pending before the court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.20, Jaipur.
2. Briefly stated, Sushil Bhagoriya submitted a complainant against thirteen persons stating therein that he is Director of Arjun Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. and the said company had purchased an agricultural land measuring 1.79 hectare falling within different khasras in village Devari, Patwar Area Mangiyawas, Tehsil Sanganer. It is further stated that Jaipur Development Authority under Section 90B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, had allowed conversion of the user. It is further stated that when employees and workers of the company went to take possession, accused named in the FIR threatened the employees and workers of the company. It is further stated that accused no. 1 to 7 and 13 have forged the false lease deed qua the same land.
3. The said complaint was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The said court passed orders under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C., as a result thereof, impugned FIR No. 39/2018 was registered at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier also by another Director of the company, FIR No. 106/2002 was lodged at the same police station alleging therein that the accused have forged and fabricated the lease deed. It is contended that the proceedings arising out of the FIR pertaining to year 2002 are pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.20, Jaipur.
5. Sub Inspector, Mahendra Singh, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur being investigating officer of the case is present in the court. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from Mr. Mahendra Singh the investigating officer, has submitted that qua same land regarding forgery of the lease deed, indeed earlier FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted therein. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from investigating officer has submitted that since the present complaint was received under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., police was bound to comply with the directions issued by the court of concerned Magistrate and hence, the second FIR was registered.
6. Mr. Aditya Sharma, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner is a different Director, though the company is same but he has lodged the present FIR in his individual capacity. The learned counsel for the complainant has not denied that qua same allegations earlier FIR was lodged by another Director. However, he has submitted that in the present case, accused who have forged the documents are different.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is undeniable fact that the qua same cause of action, earlier FIR was registered in the year 2002 and that too at the instance of the same company but by a different Director, pertaining to same land. Thus, rightful course for the complainant company was to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the persons named as accused in second FIR as additional accused, in the FIR pertaining to the first case. However, qua the same cause of action second FIR could not be lodged.
9. 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
