The Court emphasized the duty of the police to register an FIR for a cognizable offence and cautioned against allowing vexatious complaints to settle scores.

1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 22nd May, 2018, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, in Complaint titled, “Ranjeet Singh Vs. King Pal Singh and Ors.” by virtue of which respondent No.2 has been directed to register second FIR against the petitioners in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. In the petition, it has been stated, that the petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 22nd May, 2018, which has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Magistrate). The said order was passed by the Magistrate on the Complaint of respondent No. 3 by taking recourse to Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code). By virtue of the said order, respondent No.2 has been directed to lodge second FIR against the petitioners. The entire Complaint along with annexure has been forwarded to respondent No.2 for taking necessary action. The said Complaint has arisen out of FIR No.259 of 2017, registered by the respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 3. On 07th November, respondent No. 3 and his son, namely, Puneet Singh attacked one-Charanjeet Singh S/o Moti Singh. In the said attack, Charanjeet Singh sustained gunshot injury. That apart, Puneet Singh and few others also received gunshot injuries due to the shots fired by the respondent No.3. In this scuffle, respondent No. 3, i.e., Ranjeet Singh also sustained injury. On the demise of Charanjeet Singh, respondent No. 3 was taken into custody on 10th November, 2017 in FIR no. 259/2017 u/s 302/RPC 3/25/30 Arms Act and from his possession, the weapon of offence was also recovered. However, his son-Puneet Singh ever since the date of occurrence has absconded and not yet arrested. The occurrence was witnessed by the petitioners and, as such, they were cited as eye witnesses in the Challan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after completion of the investigation, Challan was produced in the Court of law and is pending trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu under Section 302 of the RPC. During the investigation of the aforesaid case, respondent No. 2, i.e., Station House Officer, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu also investigated the matter in respect of the injury sustained by respondent No. 3. In this direction, statement of petitioner No.4 was recorded. While respondent No. 3 was facing trial before the Trial Court, he after a span of more than six months of the date of occurrence filed a Complaint before the Magistrate, alleging therein that on the day of occurrence he had been assaulted by the petitioners and as a consequence whereof, he had sustained head injury. On the said Complaint, the Magistrate by taking recourse to Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of the Code, directed respondent No.2 to register FIR against the petitioners. The Magistrate on the same day, i.e., on 22nd May, 2018 itself forwarded in original the entire Complaint with annexure and order dated 22nd May, 2018 to the respondent No. 2 for necessary action. In his Complaint, the respondent No. 3 willfully concealed the vital facts qua the gunshot injuries sustained by his son and some passerby. Respondent No.3 also concealed the fact that with regard to the injury sustained by him the matter had already been thoroughly investigated by the respondent No.2. Since the injury sustained by him and the main occurrence of murder were the parts of the same transaction, as such, the direction for the second FIR passed pursuant to the order impugned was not permissible under law. For the reasons stated above, the petitioners are not in a position to furnish before this Court the certified copies of the aforementioned record. However, self-attested copies of the entire record are enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Court. The respondent No. 3 also concealed the factum of pendency of the murder case against him