Abuse of Process of Law - Multiple FIRs for Same Occurrence

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.672 (Annexure P-2) dated 18.12.2015 registered under Sections 379 and 411 IPC at Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Pooja Rawat/Negi wife of Deepak Singh Rawat got registered an FIR No.131 dated 06.12.2015 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Sector 19, Panckhula (Annexure P-1), on the allegations that she had parked her Activa No.HR03F-4746 on the ground floor of her house and when she woke up in the morning on 22.11.2015, she saw that her Activa scooter was missing leading to the registration of FIR.

3. Meanwhile, on 18.12.2015, the Police of Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh received secret information that two boys namely Saurav Arora (the present petitioner) and Vijay were roaming around to sell one stolen Activa and could be arrested if a barricade is put up near the chowk of Indira Colony, Manimajra. A barricade was put up and during the checking for an Activa scooter, the present petitioner and his co-accused while riding on the said Activa Scooter No.HR03F-4746 were caught and arrested leading to the registration of the FIR No.672 dated 18.12.2015 registered under Sections 379 and 411 IPC at Police Station Manimajra (Annexure P-2).

4. That meanwhile in FIR No.131, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 17.05.2016 registered under Sections 379/411/34 IPC. The petitioner and his co-accused came to be convicted for having committed offences under Sections 411/34 IPC by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panchkula on 23.05.2017. Against the said judgment of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal and vide judgment dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, the petitioners were acquitted of the charges under Sections 411 read with Section 34 as well.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the registration of the second FIR No.672 (P-2) is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court because the first FIR, in which the petitioner now has been acquitted already stood registered under the identical sections. He thus, contended that in respect of one and the same occurrence two different FIRs had been registered, which was impermissible in law. The scooter which had been alleged to have been stolen from Panchkula regarding which FIR No.131 dated 06.12.2015 was registered at Police Station Sector 19, Panchkula, was found recovered in the area of Chandigarh regarding which a separate FIR had been registered at Police Station Manimajra. He thus, contended that filing of the second FIR was violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India as also of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as multiple FIRs for the same occurrence are not contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. A reply had been submitted on 29.07.2016 by the ACP, Traffic Panchkula on behalf of respondent No.2 and reply dated 10.03.2017 by respondent No.1. The primary thrust of the arguments of the respondents is that while FIR No.131 at Panchkula had been registered regarding theft of the scooter, the FIR No.672 in Chandigarh was registered for having retained the stolen vehicle and thus both were distinct offences, one for stealing the property and the other for knowingly retaining the same. It was thus, stated that the ingredients of the offences were different and the cause of action occurred at two different places and thus both the cases were to be tried in different Courts.

7. The learned State counsel while reiterating the contents of their respective replies argued that the offences in question and their ingredients were different and therefore, the two separate FIRs were maintainable.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

9. Before proceeding in the matter, it would be pertinent to examine the relevant c