Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
RAMESH SINHA, RENU AGARWAL, JJ.
Mamta Pandey and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19582 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Criminal - FIR Quashing - IPC Sections 34, 302, 498-A, 504 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. regarding FIR registration and quashing, emphasizing the necessity of a single FIR for an incident and the implications of taking cognizance post-charge-sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR and charge-sheet related to a death case, arguing the FIR was a second FIR for the same incident, which was not permissible under law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was not a second FIR but a valid registration following an initial report of death, thus rejecting the petitioners' claims and upholding the charge-sheet.
Issues: Whether the impugned FIR was a second FIR and if it could be quashed under the provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR was valid as it followed an initial report of death, and the petitioners had no grounds to quash the FIR or the charge-sheet based on the law established in prior cases.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Pooja Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant/private respondent No. 4 and Shri Arunendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.
2. Initially, the instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
(ii) To issue a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners on the basis of impugned First Information Report No. 0591 of 2021 dated 27.8.2021 under Sections 34, 302, 498-A and 504 IPC, in police station Gomtinagar, District Lucknow, contained as Annexure 1 to this writ petition.
(iii) To issue any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To allow the writ petition with cost.”
3. From perusal of the order sheet of the case, it transpires that on 6.9.2021, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court passed an interim order staying the arrest of the petitioners, in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R., during pendency of investigation.
4. Thereafter, the case came before this Court at regular intervals and on 16.7.2022, a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed the following order:
C.M. Application No. 13 of 2022 - Application dated 29.11.2021 for not pressing the application for amendment of the writ petition is allowed.
Accordingly, the first application for amendment dated 29.11.2021 by which inter alia charge-sheet filed against the accused including petitioners/applicants was sought to be challenged, is dismissed as withdrawn.
(C.M. Application No. I.A. 12 of 2022 - Second Application for Amendment of the writ petition)
By means of this amendment plea being taken is that according to the admission of the Investigating Officer in his Counter-affidavit in opposition of the bail application of co-accused, it has been stated that First Information Report was entered/lodged on 26.8.2019 but the FIR which is impugned herein is dated 27.8.2021 and there is no explanation as to lodging of the first FIR and how two FIRs can be lodged. He relies upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181.
Second Application for Amendment of the writ petition is allowed as no objection has been filed by the State.
Let necessary amendment be made in this writ petition.
Let the petitioner provide the amended copy of the petition to the State within three days.
Counter-affidavit to the amended portion of the writ petition be filed within the next three days.
List on 25.7.2022 amongst first five cases of the day.
Interim order, if any, granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing.
Interim order which is operating shall not come in the way of the trial Court in proceeding against the other accused two of whom are in jail and one is on bail. It is also open for the trial Court to segregate trial of other accused from that of the petitioners, if it so deems fit.
All pleas including the maintainability of this proceeding after non-pressing of the first amendment application dated 29.11.2021 are also open for consideration.”
5. In compliance of the order dated 16.7.2022, learned Counsel for the petitioners has made amendment in the prayer clause which reads as under:
(vi) To issue a writ direction or order in the nature of Certiorari to quash the charge-sheet dated 23.11.2021, against the Petitioners, for FIR number 0591 of 2021 dated 27
An FIR cannot be quashed as a second FIR if it follows an initial report of death, and the court cannot intervene post cognizance without pending matters.
Criminal proceedings can be quashed when based on unsubstantiated allegations, especially in cases of inordinate delay in the investigation, which infringes on the right to a speedy trial.
A second writ petition challenging the same FIR is not maintainable without permission from the Supreme Court, and procedural lapses in the preparation of gang charts do not automatically invalidate ....
It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report. ....
The investigating agency cannot be restrained from investigating the FIR if it prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
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
