Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Smt. Keshar & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 648/2017
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Mr. Pradeep Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Salim Khan, P.P. and Mr. R.J. Punia, Advocate, for the Respondent.
A second FIR cannot be registered for the same cognizable offense or occurrence that has already been the subject of an investigation and charge sheet in an earlier FIR.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 173(8) - SECTION 482 - SECOND FIR - SAME INCIDENT - ABUSE OF PROCESS - QUASHING OF FIR - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in a second FIR (FIR No. 391/2016) related to the same incident as an earlier FIR (FIR No. 9/2015) in which a charge sheet had already been filed against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a second FIR cannot be registered for the same cognizable offense or occurrence that has already been the subject of an investigation and charge sheet in an earlier FIR. Allowing multiple FIRs for the same incident would amount to an abuse of the statutory power of investigation.
Issues: Whether a second FIR can be registered for the same cognizable offense or occurrence that has already been the subject of an investigation and charge sheet in an earlier FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala, which held that a second FIR for the same incident is not permissible and may amount to an abuse of power. The court also noted that the Investigating Officer can make further investigation and file a further report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in relation to the same incident.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order directing further investigation in the second FIR and set aside the second FIR itself. However, the court clarified that this order would not prevent the investigating agency from making further investigation and filing a further report in relation to the earlier FIR.
ORDER
1. By way of filing present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, and FIR No. 391/2016 lodged at P.S. Kotwali, District Barmer may be quashed and set aside.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR No.9/2015 was registered against the petitioner at PS Gadra Road, District Barmer for offences under section 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The basic crux of the FIR was that the petitioner No.1 had contested the elections for Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Shahdad ka Par on the strength of forged documents. The petitioner No.2 conspired in procuring the forged documents and committed other crimes as alleged in the FIR. The Investigating Agency after making thorough investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
3. While, the petitioners were facing trial before the competent criminal court in relation to FIR No.9/2015, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for the same allegations on the ground that a forged and fabricated verification report was prepared so that the forged mark-sheet prepared in favour of the petitioner, could be used as a true and genuine document.
4. The Investigating Agency submitted negative final report No.162/2016 in FIR No. 391/2016 lodged PS Kotwali, District Barmer. The respondent No.2 thereupon filed an application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction upon police to make further investigation upon certain issues. The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 14.02.2017, allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 and directed investigating agency to make further investigation as provided under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on certain issues mentioned in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 of the application submitted by the respondent No.2.
5. Assailing the order dated 14.02.2017 and FIR No.391/2016, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after making thorough investigation in relation to FIR No.9/2015 registered at PS Gadra Road, District Barmer, a charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC had already been filed. The second FIR on same facts is not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of passing order dated 14.02.2017 could have directed the Investigating Agency to make further investigation in the earlier FIR No.9/2015 of PS Gadra Road in which charge sheet was filed. Learned counsel submitted that if the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 is allowed to sustain, then the same will amount to gross abuse of process of court. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the present criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Anthony (supra) held as under:-
"A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narangs’ case (supra) it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citiz
