Back
2023 Supreme(Ori) 279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK, J.
Bhagirathi Satnami – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Another – Opp. Parties
CRLMC No.375 of 2022
Decided On : 26-04-2023
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bijaya Kumar Behera, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC, Mr. S. Moharana, Advocate.
A subsequent F.I.R. is not maintainable if a final report has been submitted in respect to identical allegations, reaffirming the requirement to file a protest petition in such cases.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Criminal proceedings - Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceeding for allegations of non-maintainability due to identical prior F.I.R. - Court emphasized that the subsequent F.I.R. cannot stand when previous investigation concluded with a final report. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Final report - It is impermissible to file a subsequent F.I.R. after a final report is submitted without a protest petition. Court permits filing of a protest petition in the previous case accordingly. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition arguing that criminal proceedings against him were not maintainable due to a prior similar case registered by the informant which concluded with a final report indicating no evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the second F.I.R. is not maintainable as it alleges the same matter already resolved in prior proceedings, quashing the latter case but allowing the informant to file a protest petition in the first.
Issues: The primary question was whether a subsequent F.I.R. can be maintained when a final report had been issued in a related case involving similar allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is established procedure that when a final report is submitted, the informant must file a protest petition rather than initiating a fresh F.I.R. for the same issue.
Result: Criminal proceeding quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal proceedings quashed due to prior report. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. similar allegations in two firs challenge legality. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court notes importance of protest petition after final report. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. final order issued for quashing case with provided liberty. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
R.K.PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in connection with C.T. Case No.22 of 2022 pending in the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada corresponding to Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 dated 11th January, 2022 registered under Sections 493, 417 and 294 of I.P.C on the grounds inter alia that the same is not maintainable since with the same allegations, Jonk P.S. Case No.261 dated 24th October, 2021 was registered which resulted in submission of a final report in C.T. Case No. 665 of 2021, wherein, the informant has been summoned to respond by order dated 5th January, 2022.
2. In fact, informant-opposite party No.2 has lodged an F.I.R., consequent upon which, Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 was registered wherein she alleged that the petitioner had assured to marry and kept physical relationship with her but lastly he did not, rather, on being confronted, she was abused in filthy language. According to the petitioner, the informant had earlier lodged a similar report for which Jonk P.S. Case No. 261 of 2021 was registered under Section 493, 417, 294 and 313 I.P.C and therein after completion of investigation, a final report was submitted and thereafter the learned Court below issued notice to opposite party No.2 to reply. It is further contention of the petitioner that the informant-opposite party No.2 without filing a protest petition, again lodged the F.I.R. dated 11th January, 2022. On filing of such a report, registration of Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 dated 11th January, 2022 cannot be sustained in law when on a similar allegation, investigation was concluded in Jonk P.S. Case No. 261 dated 24th October, 2021.
3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
4. The allegation in Annexure-1 i.e. F.I.R. dated 11th January, 2022 is that the petitioner had kept physical relationship with opposite party No.2 and by taking a plea that his brother is not in favour of such marriage declined to for marriage her and also abused her in obscene language and then absconded. A copy of the other F.I. R i.e. date 24th October, 2021 is at Annexure-2, which was lodged at the instance of opposite party No.2 with similar allegation by claiming that she was administered medicines to abort her fetus as she had become pregnant due to the alleged relationship. More or less the allegations are similar in both the F.I.Rs i.e. Annexures- 1 & 2.
5. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the F.I.R. dated 24th October, 2021 was lodged by the opposite party No.2 and investigation was held in connection with Jonk P.S. No.261 of 2021 and it resulted in final report and instead of filing a protest petition, the report under Annexure-1 was lodged and Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 of 2022 was registered which should not have been entertained.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2, on the other hand, submits that the allegation against the petitioner, which is at the behest of opposite party No.2-informant, is required to be investigated upon by the local police in connection with Jonk P.S. Case No. 05 dated 11th January, 2022. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State shared his view point with reference to the contention of the petitioner.
7. Annexure-2 was lodged on 24th October, 2021 and at last, the final report was submitted on 30th November, 2021. As per the said report, no evidence was found against the petitioner, rather, opposite party No.2 alleged to have lodged the F.I.R being pressurized by her family.
8. Mr. Behera, learned couns
