A second FIR cannot be filed for the same offences due to the principles set forth in Section 162, CrPC, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes is paramount in determining maintainability for quashing an FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Heard Mr. Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the affidavit filed in support of this application.

2. Present application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for the sake of brevity ‘BNSS’) has been filed for quashing the first information report dated 14.6.2024 registered as P.S. Civil Lines, Meerut, giving rise to the registration of Crime No 192 of 2024 against the applicant and two others for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the instant first information report which has been lodged is an abuse of process of the Court as on similar facts, earlier first information report bearing no. 0039 of 2022 was lodged on 3.2.2022 against 04 persons, namely, Narendra Singh Tomar, Satish Tewatiya, Hareram Dua and Jatin Dua for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 471, 386 and 120B, P.S. Transport Nagar, District Meerut (annexure 4 to the memo of application). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that chargesheet in the said case has already been filed and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the offences described in the chargesheet. It is also much after registration of the FIR no. 0039 of 2022, the opposite party no. 2 in his capacity as Manager of the Society filed an application under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) against the applicant and two others before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and the same was allowed vide order dated 7.6.2024 and the concerned Police Station was directed to register the FIR against the applicant and two others and to investigate the offence in accordance with law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that instant FIR is illegal as two FIRs cannot be lodged for the same offences in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of UP , (2001)6 SCC 181 as the second FIR is barred by the provisions of Section 162 of the CrPC. It is further submitted that on close perusal of FIR No. 39 of 2022, it would emerge that the substratum of the said FIR and the instant FIR is the same. It is further submitted that even if the allegation made in the instant FIR is taken to be true on its face value, then no offence under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicant. It is also submitted that no falsification of a document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) has been done by the applicant, therefore, offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is not made out. It is further submitted that falsification of documents within the meaning of Section 464 of the IPC is the prerequisite for constituting the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharraj , (2018) 7 SCC 581 in which Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized as follows:

“25. That keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e. referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a do