Back
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Sangeeta Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
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 t
A second FIR is permissible if it presents a different version of the same incident, allowing for new discoveries to be considered.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the First Information Report and the test of 'sameness' to determine the permissibility of multiple FIRs for the same occurrence.
A second FIR for the same incident is impermissible under law unless it pertains to a different cognizable offence or occurrence.
FIR registration is mandatory if a cognizable offence is disclosed, and second FIRs are permissible where informants and versions differ.
Permissibility of second FIR and application of 'test of sameness' to determine if the FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction.
Point of law: scope of doctrine of double jeopardy, observing that “in order to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, there must have been both prosecution and punishment in re....
A second FIR is maintainable if it involves distinct allegations not covered in a prior FIR, even if both arise from the same factual circumstance.
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
