SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Smt Sangeeta Mishra – Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 24871 Of 2024
Decided On : 30-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Amitabh Tripathi, Saroj Kumar Dubey.

IMPORTANT POINT
A second FIR is permissible if it presents a different version of the same incident, allowing for new discoveries to be considered.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Second FIR - Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on grounds of prior FIR and chargesheet against the applicant - Court held that second FIR is permissible when it presents a different version of the same incident - Orders set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 31 and 32)

(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that the test of sameness must be applied to determine the permissibility of a second FIR, and new discoveries can warrant a second FIR. (Paras 13, 18, 28)

JUDGMENT :

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The applicant has preferred instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing validity of an order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Misc. Application No. 2646/XI of 2021,[Smt. Sangeeta Mishra v. Sachchidanand and others], vide which application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected, as well as order dated 21.04.2023,[Passed in Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2022 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura] vide which criminal revision against the aforesaid order has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by Raghvendra Singh, Sub-Inspector on 28.05.2020 at 23:42 hours, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, bearing Case Crime No. 331 of 2020, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, against unknown, alleging that on 03.05.2020 at about 19:14 hours burnt dead body of one unknown person was found near the boundary wall of fields behind Vaishno Devi Dham. Postmortem report of the aforesaid was conducted, from which it was found that the aforesaid person was done to death by throttling and in order to destroy the evidence, the body was burnt and thrown behind Vaishno Devi Dham.

4. After lodging of the FIR, the police tried by all means to identify the dead body and the same was identified by the applicant Sangeeta Mishra and her son on the basis of article which was recovered near the dead body, which has been narrated by the Investigating Officer in Parcha dated 08.06.2020 In the said parcha, endorsement regarding application for lodging missing report as moved by the applicant has also been endorsed by the Investigating Officer and the same was registered by the police on 31.05.2020 as missing report no. 37 of 2020.

5. The real fact was that father-in-law of the applicant executed family settlement regarding his property and divided share of their sons which was not within the knowledge of the applicant or her husband. As they were not taken into confidence, a dispute arose among the husband of the applicant, father-in-law, jeth and devar, thus a legal notice was sent by mother-in-law of the applicant to the applicant for compliance of condition of family settlement executed by her husband on 22.06.2019, to which husband of the applicant replied and denied the contents of family settlement.

6. To resolve the aforesaid dispute, one Chandra Mohan (brother-in-law of the applicant) came to her husband and requested her husband to be present at native place so that the matter is amicably settled. Accordingly, the applicant's husband went along with his brother Chandra Mohan at his house on 03.05.2020 and when he did not return, the applicant tried to search for him but he could not be traced.

7. Due to Covid-19 pandemic in the month of May, 2020, the applicant being placed in a difficult situation, could somehow inform the police on 04.05.2020 regarding missing of her husband but the police did not register any missing report. A reminder was given on 28.05.2020 but of no avail. In the meantime, the police ignoring the request of the applicant to lodge missing report, has registered the case being Case Crime No. 331 of 2020, as mentioned above.

8. The police after investigation, on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant, submitted chargesheet against the applicant and she was sent to jail. After being released from jail, she moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 16.11.2021 requesting to lodge an FIR against real culprits as she was not being heard by the police authorities.

9. The court below has rejected the aforesaid application by order dated 05.05.2022 in a mechanical manner without application of mind on the ground that FIR for murder of husband of the applicant, has already been registered as Case Crime No. 331 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top