Point of Law: Two separate FIR - Investigation - Permissible - Simultaneous investigation would not amount to fresh investigation. Interference in a matter where the earliest information prima facie makes out cognizable offence coupled with the fact that a police report under S.173 (2) Cr.P.C. has come to be filed against some petitioners does not leave any scope to interfere in impugned FIR which no more exists as a separate case.

JUDGMENT :

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

1. Heard Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raghvendra Pandey, Viksit Arora and Shri Nadeem Murtaza on behalf of the petitioners and Shri V.K. Shahi, learned AAG assisted by Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. This writ petition has fallen in the lap of this Court under peculiar circumstances. There is a folklore that a wrongful mind breeds evil and a rightful conduct fountains nothing but truth. Humanity is universally subjugated to the influence of evil and it is difficult to carve out an exception in the modern world of any popular civilized order that guarantees personal liberty ideally and enforces the human rights by adhering to the exemplary standards. The rule of law nevertheless must prevail to strengthen social and economic peace.

3. The criminal administration of justice under the Constitution of India hinges on Article 21 read with Article 20 and this is what the framers of our Constitution have fundamentally guaranteed to the citizens. The procedure prescribed under law is as fundamental under Article 21 as the right of personal liberty itself whereas Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India protects a citizen from the prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once.

4. The present writ petition has challenged the legality of an FIR registered vide number 98 of 2021 the investigation whereof was transferred to SIT by opposite party no. 1 on the date of registration of FIR itself i.e. 4.3.2001. The SIT renumbered the case vide FIR number 4 of 2021 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC. The original number of the second FIR i.e. 98 of 2021 is mentioned in the corresponding record of the FIR of SIT i.e. FIR No. 4/2021 with all relevant particulars including the date of registration of the second FIR on 4.3.2021 at 3.52 hours. The presentation of the written information of recovery memo in the police station is mentioned at 3.51 hours whereas the date of occurrence is shown at 1.45 hours to 1.45 hours on 4.3.2021.

5. The FIR was registered against as many as sixteen persons but the owner of the manufacturing company for whose benefit the double exit of country made liquor on a single waybill (bilty)/gate pass was indulged into, despite being the main profiteer of the alleged occurrence mentioned in the recovery memo, was not named in the FIR and has not been arrested even otherwise.

6. The petitioners have challenged the FIR mainly on the ground that the same written information in respect of the alleged occurrence was already registered at 3.51 hours as FIR No. 97 of 2021 under Section 60 of the Excise Act, 1910 at the same police station on the same day, therefore, the registration and fresh investigation pursuant to the second FIR arising out of the same occurrence/information within a closest proximity of time for multiple offences under IPC was impermissible in the eye of law and hence the impugned FIR may be quashed alongwith the investigation held in pursuance thereof and the petitioners no. 2, 8 to 15 sent to judicial custody may be released on interim bail.

7. The facts of the case according to the petitioners, briefly stated, are that FIR No. 97 of 2021 under Section 60 of Excise Act, 1910, renumbered by SIT as FIR No. 3 of 2021 was already registered at the concerned police station containing entirely the same version as that of second FIR No. 98 of 2021 registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC on 4.3.2021. The police authorities having registered the two FIRs within a margin of one minute proceeded to arrest the petitioners no. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 on the same day and on production before the competent court, they were taken into judicial custody under remand orders passed separately on 4.3.2021 in both the cases i.e. Case Crime No. 97 of 2021 under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and Case Crime No. 98 of 2021 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Sect