JUDGMENT

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

By means of present application, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Miscellaneous Application No. 108 of 2020, Manpal Sharma vs. Ajit Kumar Chaturvedi and ors.

2. Heard.

3. Facts, in brief, are that an application was moved by respondent no. 4 Manpal Sharma under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Addl. CJM, Roorkee; on the basis of said application, the concerned Court directed the Inspector, Kotwali Civil Lines to register the FIR and investigate the matter vide order dated 23.12.2020; aggrieved it, the applicants filed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that one Mr. Prashant Garg has already submitted an information before the concerned Police Station on 11.12.2020 with same facts and allegations, which was registered as FIR No. 0677 of 2020 under Section 409 IPC with the same Police Station; the said FIR was lodged against one Dheeraj Kumar Upadhyayay in which the investigation is pending; respondent Manpal Sharma has no right to file the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging the FIR in respect of one and the same incident against the applicants. 

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narangs' case (supra) it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after fling the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final re