Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Brij Raj Singh, J.
Gaurav @ Govind – Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 2660 Of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
F.I.R. - Criminal Procedure - Section 302 I.P.C. - [Section 302 I.P.C.] - The court discussed the distinction between information under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The judgment emphasized that the inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. are in the nature of inquiry and cannot be equated with the investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed based on the material collected by the Investigating Officer, and the court had no option but to frame the charge.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the challenge of a charge sheet framed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-14, Aligarh, under Section 302 I.P.C. The applicant argued that the investigation of the second F.I.R. was not legally sustainable and that the materials collected against the applicant were based on hearsay witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first report dated 26.10.2021 was an information tendered by the railway authority regarding an unknown dead body, which cannot be termed as F.I.R. The preparation of inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was in the nature of inquiry and cannot be equated with the investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C. The charges were framed after collecting material on record, and the court had no option but to frame the charge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the investigation of the second F.I.R., the nature of the inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and the framing of charges based on the material collected by the Investigating Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between information under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. It highlighted that inquest proceedings are in the nature of inquiry and cannot be equated with the investigation. The charges were framed based on the material collected by the Investigating Officer, and the court had no option but to frame the charge.
Final Decision: The revision lacked merit and was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
(Brij Raj Singh, J.)
1. The present revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow this revision and quash/set aside the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-14, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.942 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Gaurav @ Govind) arising out of Case Crime No.74 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Aligarh Junction, District Aligarh.
2. Portal/Pointsman, Mukesh Kumar and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hathras Railway Station were informed on 26.10.2021 about unidentified dead body laid down near platform no.2, up line to the out post of the G.R.P. Hathras Junction. The inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased on 26.10.2021 and Panchnama was prepared and thereafter the postmortem was also conducted on 26.10.2021, which indicates that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury.
3. The family members of the deceased reached at the place of occurrence, where inquest was prepared by the concerned police station. The report was registered under Section 174(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After conducting Panchnama, postmortem report and detailed accident report were submitted on 26.10.2021. The brother of deceased, lodged a report on 28.10.2021 mentioning therein that he had come to Aligarh on 28.10.2021 to take postmortem report and while he was sitting in waiting room of Aligarh Railway Station, he heard from one Omjeet @ Chhotu, son of Kishori Lal that he was sitting in General Bogie of Unchahar Express from Fafund Railway Station on 25.10.2021, which was going to Chandigarh, one Gaurav @ Govind, a Mechanic of Bike met him in the train, after sometime, there was quarrel at Hathras Railway Station between a boy (deceased) and Gaurav and the boy was thrown from the train by accused.
4. The first information report was lodged on 28.10.2021, under Section 302 I.P.C. at G.R.P. Aligarh Junction, Aligarh. The investigation was conducted and statement of complainant as well as other witnesses was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and charge sheet was filed against the applicant on 20.12.2021 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, under Section 302 I.P.C. The cognizance was taken and charges were framed.
5. The applicant has challenged the charge sheet dated 26.04.2022, framed by Additional District and Sessions Judge- 14, Aligarh.
6. It has been submitted by Sri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist that there are two F.I.Rs. in the present case and two investigations were carried out by the Police but no police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted before Chief Judicial Magistrate with respect to the information and the charges have been framed in pursuance of the second F.I.R., which is not legally sustainable. He has submitted that for the same cause of action, it is the second F.I.R., therefore, proceeding initiated for framing the charge dated 26.04.2022 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, is bad in the eyes of law and according to his submission investigation of second F.I.R. is bad in the eyes of law, whereas, the first report should be taken into consideration. He has further submitted that the materials collected under Section 302 I.P.C. against the applicant, is based on hearsay witness. He has relied upon the judgment passed by High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in the case of Manohari Vs. The District Superintendent of Police reported in 2018 (2) LW (Cri) 522, Rhea Chakraborty Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2020 (0) SC 490 and Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and others Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2006 (2) SCC 450.
7. On the other hand, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party has opposed and submitted that there is only one F.I.R., which was registered on 28.10.2021, as Case Crime No.74 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P. Aligarh Junctiion, District Aligarh. The information tendered by
The distinction between information under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C., and the necessity to frame charges based on the material collected by the Investigating Officer.
An FIR must be registered for investigating suspicious unnatural deaths, distinguishing between inquiries under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and criminal investigations under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Charges must be framed only after considering all evidence, including supplementary reports, to ensure fair trial rights of the accused.
A prior inquiry under Section 174 does not constitute an FIR, hence a second FIR can be registered based on new evidence, permitting continued investigation regardless of jurisdictional issues.
There is no legal bar against further investigation. Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code does not restrict reopening of the case in which charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance ....
Distinction between inquiries and investigations under different sections of CrPC; obligation to inform victims about inquiry conclusions if no cognizable offense is revealed.
Point of Law : Section 190 of Code reads cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
At the stage of framing of the charge, the accused has no right to produce any material, and the trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case to determine whether a case has be....
(1) Scope of investigation in a proceeding under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is very wide – In contrast, investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. is an investigation on an inquiry into apparent cause of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
