The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of a second FIR for the same incident is permissible under certain circumstances, especially when there are rival versions of the events.

1. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.68/2016 under Section 287, 336 and 358 RPC, registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khour, Aknoor.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a Government employee of J&K Police Department and at present is working on the post of Selection Grade Constable. In the month of April, 2016, the petitioner was deployed as Personal Security Officer (hereinafter referred to as “PSO”) by SSP Security, Central Pool, Jammu, with one political PDP leader, namely Sh. Rajinder Singh, for his security and protection in view of threat to his life and his family members, who is presently holding the post of vice-president of PDP Youth, Jammu. It is stated that the petitioner is an innocent and is falsely implicated in a false and frivolous case registered at Police Station Khour, Akhnoor. The case FIR No.68/2016 came to be registered at Police Station Khour, Akhnoor, against the petitioner and the allegation, as alleged in the FIR against the petitioner is that on 03/08/2016, while the petitioner coming back from Pargwal in the vehicle with the said PDP leader with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO and on reaching at Nai Basti, a mob which was already gathered at Nai Basti Chowk in view of some fighting between local persons, attacked the vehicle and persons inside the vehicle by pelting stones on them and in view of that the petitioner fired four rounds from his service rifle and no one was injured, as such the petitioner has been booked under Sections 287/336/358 RPC for his negligence. It is further submitted that this is the only allegation against the petitioner that in view of attack by the mob by pelting stones on the petitioner officer's vehicle, the petitioner fired four rounds from his service rifle.

3. It is stated in the instant petition that prior to registration of aforesaid FIR, the PDP leader with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO has registered the FIR No.67/2016 (Annexure-B) in respect of the same occurrence against Madan Lal and others for attacking him and other persons including petitioner with deadly weapons and pelting stones and also causing injury to petitioner. It is also stated in the said FIR that three persons from the mob also tried to snatch the service rifle of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, even if the same taken are true for the sake of arguments though denied, the offences mentioned in the impugned FIR does not constitute offence, as the same is clear from the impugned FIR itself that there was attack by the mob on the person with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO and in discharge of duty, a personal security officer is duty bound to protect his officer and further, it is submitted that when there is already one FIR registered, wherein it is specifically alleged that the mob has attacked the political leader and the petitioner with whom the petitioner is attached as PSO's, lodging of FIR (second) against the petitioner for the same occurrence is abuse of process of law.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR (Annexure A) has challenged the same on the following grounds:-

a. That the impugned FIR and complaint is bad in law as well as the facts and is liable to be quashed out rightly.

b. That bare reading of FIR as a whole and allegation made therein, even if, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety no prudent person can lead to the conclusion that offences Under Section 287/336/358 RPC are made out against the petitioners.

c. That the allegation made in the complaint/petition against the petitioner are patently absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner. The continuation of the FIR is sheer abuse of process of law and the Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisd