Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 2219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Mohd Hasam - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5520 of 2018
Decided On : 10-09-2018
Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, for the Petitioners; Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP, for the Respondents
Registration of a second FIR for the same offence/event is not permissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - SECTIONS 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 427, 283 IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF PDPP ACT - QUASHING OF FIR - SECOND FIR FOR SAME INCIDENT - NOT PERMISSIBLE - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No.636/2017 registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 427 and 283 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act, alleging that it was a second FIR for the same incident as FIR No.0635 dated 29.12.2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both FIRs pertained to the same incident and that the allegations in both FIRs were identical. It held that registration of a second FIR for the same incident is not permissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the second FIR, FIR No.636/2017, was permissible in light of the first FIR, FIR No.0635/2017, which was registered for the same incident.
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/event is not permissible and that any further information received by the investigating agency is always in furtherance of the first FIR.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the second FIR, FIR No.636/2017. It directed that the contents of the second FIR be treated as a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the first FIR, FIR No.635/2017. It also directed that if a charge sheet had already been filed in both FIRs, the charge sheet filed in the second FIR be treated as a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the first FIR. If no charge sheet had been submitted in the second FIR, the version contained therein was to be investigated as part of the first FIR.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of FIR No.636/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 427 and 283 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act.
2. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that on 28.12.2017 at about 5 pm an accident occurred near Maskat Hotel, Fatehpur Road, Sikar.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that qua the said accident FIR No.0635 dated 29.12.2017 was registered at the instance of Suresh Kumar driver of the bus who stated therein that he is driver of the bus No.RJ-10-PA-6183 and on 28.12.2017 he along with conductor Arun Khan was going from Jaipur to Churu. One boy who was on the motorcycle made an attempt to overtake the bus from the left side and an accident occurred and the motorcycle rider fell on the ground and died. Thereafter, a mob of 400-500 people gathered and they were armed with stones, lathis Rods and pipe and they said that since the accident had been caused by the driver of the bus he be set on fire.
4. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that after petitioners obtained bail in FIR No.0635 dated 29.12.2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, FIR bearing No.636 dated 29.12.2017 was registered at the same police station.
5. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that it is stated in the FIR that the police rescued the driver of the bus and identical allegations have been leveled in first and second FIR i.e. FIR No.635 and 636 of 2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar.
6. Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, ld. PP, has very fairly admitted that both the FIRs pertain to same incident. She has been unable to meet the argument raised by counsel for the petitioners that FIR No.636 dated 29.12.2017 being qua the same incident is second FIR and having almost identical allegations is not permissible.
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 (supra), 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 scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169,170 and 173 Code of Criminal Procedure only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence sat
