Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2549
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mrs. Sabina, J.
Ashok Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 25 of 2015
Decided On : 26-07-2017
Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P, for the State; Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2
There cannot be two FIRs for the same offense or incident, as it amounts to double jeopardy and abuse of power by the investigating authority.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - SAME CAUSE OF ACTION - SECOND FIR NOT MAINTAINABLE - DOUBLE JEOPARDY - ABUSE OF POWER BY INVESTIGATING AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered against them for offenses under Sections 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners were already facing trial in another case (FIR No. 90/2014) registered in Gujarat for offenses under Sections 498-A, 306, and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to the suicide of the petitioner's wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the second FIR (FIR No. 506/2014) was not maintainable as it related to the same cause of action as the first FIR (FIR No. 90/2014). The court observed that the complainant could have leveled all allegations in the first FIR and that lodging a second FIR amounted to an abuse of power by the investigating authority.
Issues: Whether the second FIR (FIR No. 506/2014) was maintainable in light of the first FIR (FIR No. 90/2014) relating to the same cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation, which held that there cannot be two FIRs for the same offense or incident. The court also noted that the Investigating Agency had submitted a negative final report qua FIR No. 506/2014, indicating that there was no basis for further investigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 506/2014 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
JUDGMENT
Sabina, J. - Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the First Information Report No. 506/2014 registered at Police Station Shahpura, Jaipur (Rural), for offences under Sections 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 got married to Gayatri @ Priyanka on 01.05.2014. Gayatri @ Prlyanka has committed suicide on 30.07.2014 by consuming poison at Junagadh (State of Gujarat). FIR No. 90/2014 (Annexure-1) was registered against the petitioners under Section 498-A, 306, 304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 01.09.2014 at Police Station Junagadh. Petitioners are facing trial in the said case as challan has been presented in the Court. After investigation of the case, FIR Annexure-1 was got registered by respondent No. 2. However, respondent No, 2 has lodged another FIR Annexure-3 against the petitioners at Police Station Shahpura, Jaipur Rural under Section 406 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 07.11.2014. FIR Annexure-3 was liable to be quashed as the petitioners cannot be criminally proceeded in two cases relating to same cause of action, After thorough investigation of the case, Investigating Agency had presented a negative final report qua FIR Annexure-3. However, Magistrate sent the case for further investigation on irrelevant considerations. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Smt. Narbada Devi & Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2016(3) RCC (Raj.) 1273 , wherein it was held as under:
"In the matter of T.T. Antony (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences which is first entered in station house diary by officer in charge of the police station can be regarded as FIR under Section 154 Cr.RC. All such subsequent information''s will be covered by Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 Officer in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 Even if after conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 the officer in charge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident he can make further investigation normally with the leave of the Court and forward the further evidence, if any collected, with further reports under Section 173(8) Cr.RC.
3. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2013(6) Supreme Court Cases 384 , wherein it was held as under:-
"On the plain construction of the language and scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 14 suggest that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the officer in-charge of a Police Station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the Incident is separate, offences are similar or different or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude tha
