Point of Law: After registering the FIR and commencing investigation, registering the second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incident and crime and making of fresh investigation pursuant thereto would be irregular which calls for interference by the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. and interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 with a fresh investigation to prevent abuse of a statutory power of investigation or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. In the instant writ petition the petitioners seek to challenge the First Information Report dated 30.01.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0025 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 308, 325, 395, 452, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Sikrara, District-Jaunpur.

3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are two FIRs registered for the same incident. Petitioners are named accused in the impugned FIR and are, therefore, aggrieved.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State pointed out that for the same occurrence two FIRs have been registered: (i) the first FIR dated 22.08.2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 0170 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur was lodged by Suraj Kumar (son of respondent no. 3) against four persons (ii) another FIR dated 30.01.2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0025 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 308, 325, 395, 452, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur was lodged by respondent no. 3 against 14 named accused persons on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved on 18.09.2020 by respondent No. 3, wherein the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur directed vide order dated 10.01.2022 to the concerned police station to register the crime.

5. Upon having heard both the counsel for the parties as well as upon perusal of the record, it is admittedly true that for the same occurrence which took place on 21.08.2020, two separate FIRs have been registered. The first FIR was lodged by Suraj Kumar (son of the respondent no. 3) under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC in which the investigation has been concluded and the charge sheet dated 04.09.2022 was filed in the Court against four named accused persons as well as against the petitioner no. 1, Raj Kumar under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 147 and 188 IPC, thereafter, cognizance was taken on 13.06.2022. However, at the later stage on the directions of the concerned Circle Officer, a Supplementary charge sheet was filed on 07.12.2022 against petitioner nos.2 to 11, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 325, 324, 504 and 506 IPC and the name of the petitioner no. 12 was exonerated.

6. From the perusal of the record, we find that after an application dated 18.09.2020, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the respondent no. 3 before the concerned Magistrate, a report was sought from the concerned police station regarding the incident. The concerned police station forwarded the report with a noting that, no FIR has been registered in the instant case. Considering this fact the concerned Magistrate, vide order dated 10.01.2022, directed the concerned police station to register the impugned FIR. Thus, relying on the said report, the concerned Magistrate directed for registration of the impugned FIR. In case, the correct information would have been furnished by the concerned police station the impugned FIR would not have come into existence. As a second/subsequent FIR has been registered on the basis of wrong and misleading information forwarded by the concerned police station, therefore, it cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

7. It has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 181, that after registering the FIR and commencing investigation, registering the second FIR or successive FIR in respect of the same incident and crime and making of fresh investigation pursuant thereto would be irregular which calls for interference by the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C. and interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 with a fresh investigation to prevent abuse of a statutory power of investigation or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

8. After considering the aforesaid facts and cir