Back
2004 Supreme(All) 1114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. OJHA
NAUSHAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE of U. P. - Respondents
Criminal Revision 1476 Of 2001
Decided On : 07/07/2004
SUNIL KUMAR
Prohibition of lodging a second FIR and starting a fresh investigation, but allowance for further investigation with the leave of the Court and submission of additional evidence in an additional report.
Headnote:
FIR - Criminal Procedure - Section 162, Section 154, Section 173 - The court discussed the prohibition of lodging a second FIR and starting a fresh investigation at the initial stage. It emphasized that further investigation can be conducted with the leave of the Court and additional evidence can be collected and submitted in an additional report, but investigation should not be started afresh. The discretion of directing further investigation lies with the Superintendent of Police or Sr. Superintendent of Police.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an FIR lodged against individuals for theft and subsequent deaths of the accused during mob beating. Another application was filed under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for a separate incident resulting in death, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court partly allowed the revision, directing the investigating officer to collect additional evidence and submit an additional report without starting a fresh investigation. It set aside the direction for investigation by a senior Police Officer, leaving the discretion to the head of the police administration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permissibility of lodging a second FIR and starting a fresh investigation, and the discretion in directing further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a second FIR cannot be lodged in respect of the same facts of occurrence, and fresh investigation cannot be started at the initial stage. However, further investigation can be conducted with the leave of the Court, and additional evidence can be collected and submitted in an additional report.
Final Decision: The revision was partly allowed, directing the investigating officer to collect additional evidence and submit an additional report without starting a fresh investigation. The direction for investigation by a senior Police Officer was set aside, leaving the discretion to the head of the police administration.
( 2 ) IN the instant revision, earlier argument of Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA was heard and the case was listed for rest arguments but none appeared for the revisionist on adjourned date. Hence rest argument of learned AGA was heard and judgment is being delivered.
( 3 ) THE fact of the case is that one mumtaz, revisionist No. 3 lodged an F. I. R. against Hasim, Teja and Sajan on 31-1-2001 at 8. 30 a. m. bearing Case Crime No. 47/2001 under Sections 459 and 380, IPC at p. S. Sikandarabad containing the fact that in the night of 30/31st January, 2001, he along with his family members was sleeping inside his house. He woke-up on some sound at about 3. 30 a. m. and saw three miscreants present in his house who were taking away clothes, ornaments and cash. On alarm raised by him and his family members, persons of the locality assembled, apprehended two miscreants who told themselves to be Hasim and Teja. The miscreant who was successful in making his escape good was Sahajad alias Shanker. He ran away along with ornaments, cash and clothes. After the F. I. R. was lodged, statements of witnesses Shakeel, Jafir, Bhujahid, swalim, Smt. Harhat Jaham, Smt. Nizima aqueel Ahmad, Mukhliar Ahmad and kausheep were recorded. The miscreants hasim and Teja were beaten by mob. They were carried to the hospital where they died. After investigation, the investigating officer arrived at the conclusion that while committing theft abovementioned two persons were arrested on the spot, beaten by the mob, as a result of which they died and the case proceeded against Shahjad under sections 459 and 380, I. P. C. Later on one mohd. Aslam moved an application against naushad, Saleem and Mumtaz under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code on 1st February, 2001 that in the night of 30th january, 2001, he along with his younger brother Hanif and one another were going back after attending picture, Naushad, saleem and Mumtaz met on the way, carried his brother to his house and beat him and, thereafter, carried him to District Hospital, Bulandshahar, where he was declared dead. This application moved under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was rejected by the Chief judicial Magistrate on the ground that in view of (1990) All WC 433 : (1990 All LJ 359), ram Mohan Garg v. State of U. P. , second f. I. R. could not be lodged. When revision was preferred, impugned order was passed. Hence instant revision has been preferred before this Court.
( 4 ) IN this case, even though the learned sessions Judge did not direct to lodge second F. I. R. , but directed that some senior officer of the police, not below the rank of deputy Superintendent of Police has to investigate the case with initial stage ignoring the investigation, already done by the Police Officer.
( 5 ) IT has been held by this Court in Ram mohan Gargs case cited above, that registration of second F. I. R. of cross case is not permissible after the investigation in respect of crime has commenced in view of the provisions of Section 162, Cr. P. C. , however, it was always possible that during the investigation of crime, version s
