Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Md. Yusuf Khan - Applicant
Vs.
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. -8355 of 2009
Decided On : 27-11-2019
For the Applicant : R.B. Singh, Syed Ahmed Faizan, Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi
There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - [Forgery of Documents] - [Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 I.P.C.] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 154, 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the legal principles established in various judgments by the Apex Court, including Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi, T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, and Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another. The court emphasized that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The court also highlighted the concept of sameness and the permissibility of counter-first information reports in respect of the same or connected incident. The judgment reaffirmed the fundamental rights of an accused provided under Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court quashed the second FIR and the impugned charge-sheet, leaving it open for the opposite party to file a protest petition or a fresh application for re-investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet dated 20th August, 2008 in Case No. 7710 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 457 of 2008, under Sections 420, 468, 467 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh. The first informant, in the capacity of Deputy Commandant, alleged that the applicant had obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and affidavit while concealing his correct date of birth and qualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second FIR lodged against the applicant for the same offence could not be legally sustained and quashed the second FIR and the impugned charge-sheet. The court emphasized the settled law that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permissibility of a second FIR and fresh investigation for the same offence, the concept of sameness, and the fundamental rights of the accused provided under Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the legal principle that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. The court also highlighted the concept of sameness and the permissibility of counter-first information reports in respect of the same or connected incident.
Final Decision: The court quashed the second FIR and the impugned charge-sheet, leaving it open for the opposite party to file a protest petition or a fresh application for re-investigation.
JUDGMENT :
1. Perusal of the order-sheet records that despite several orders, notices issued to opposite party no.2 has not been returned back after service nor any body has appeared on his behalf till date.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that since the impugned first information report had been lodged in the official capacity by the first informant/opposite party no.2 and probably, he must have retired from service, notice issued to opposite party no.2 has returned back at all times.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 20th August, 2008 in Case No. 7710 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 457 of 2008, under Sections 420, 468, 467 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh.
4. Heard Mr. Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocates for the State as well as perused the entire materials available on record.
5. Brief facts, as born out from the record, are that a first information report has been lodged on 27th May/June, 2008 by Pramod Kumar in the capacity of Deputy Commandant, 45th Vahini P.A.C. Aligarh for the alleged incident dated 23rd April, 1988 against the applicant with the allegation that on 23rd April, 1988, the applicant, namely, Md. Yusuf Khan, S/o Late Mohd. Sultan Khan, R/o village Chhetarpur, Police Station-Sakaldeehan, District-Chandauli, having been appointed as cook in the P.A.C. Department, was posted at Aligarh. At the time of appointment, the applicant had disclosed his forged date of birth as “01th November, 1969” while concealing his correct date of birth i.e. “3rd January, 1965” as also he had disclosed his qualification as Class IX passed while concealing that he was declared fail in the High School Examination. The aforesaid facts had also been verified from the transfer certificate issued by the Principal, Janta Higher Secondary School, Boobash Dheena. At the time of appointment he had also filed an affidavit, wherein he had undertaken that all the facts in the form of information furnished by him and documents submitted by him were true and genuine, whereas after verification it was found that all were forged. For the aforesaid forgery committed by the applicant, the informant had also conducted a preliminary enquiry and after enquiry, on the basis of statements and records it was found that after misleading the department, he had obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and filed a false affidavit, while concealing his correct date of birth and qualification. Seeing the grievous offence, as committed by the applicant, the informant has lodged the first information report against the applicant, which was registered as Case Crime No. 457 of 2008, under Sections 420, 468, 467 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh. After conducting statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number, under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Police has submitted charge sheet against the applicant on 20th August, 2008 against which, present application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
6. On the present matter being placed before this Court, on 10th April, 2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed following order:
“Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 20.08.2008 of Case Crime No. 457 of 2008, Case No. 7710 of 2008, under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of appointment of the applicant under Dying in Harness Rules, the applicant submitted all his educational certificates to the opposite party no.2 and thereafter, the opposite party no.2 on 01.09.2006 lodged an F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 620 of 2006, under Sections 420, 464, 466, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., against whi
