The court established that the direction for a second F.I.R for the same offence was an abuse of process of law and emphasized that F.I.R for the same offence cannot be registered twice.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This C482 application has been filed by the applicant, challenging the order dated 21.02.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 393 of 2010, to the extent whereby a direction was issued to the S.O. Kichha to register a criminal case under relevant sections of IPC against the applicant and the then Bank employees; the order dated 20.04.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2012, as time barred; and, a charge-sheet dated 26.06.2012 submitted in the pursuance of the first information report dated 03.03.2011 as F.I.R No. 51 of 2011.

2. The brief facts of the case, giving rise to filing of the present C482 application are that, an F.I.R was lodged by Shri Anil Kumar Karnatak, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Lalpur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide letter dated 25.04.2000 to S.O. Kichha, with the averments that a Bank Draft No.98/JK096891 dated 23.08.2000 for Rs.80,000/- was paid to M/s Krishi Vikas Kendra, Lalpur, by his branch on 26.08.2000, but when contacted with the branch, by which, the draft was issued, this fact came to the notice of the informant that the bank draft was issued, by the Branch Milak, on 23.08.2000 for Rs.8,000/- only. According to the informant, the amount of the aforesaid draft was fraudulently changed in words as well as in numbers and the payment was received in the bank account of the proprietor Shri Krishan Lal, S/o Mela Ram, R/o Azadnagar, Kichha account holder of M/s Krishi Vikas Kendra, Laal Pul, causing a loss of Rs.72,000/- to the informant – Bank.

3. On the basis of this F.I.R, a Case Crime No. 242 of 2000, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was registered on 25.04.2000 at 18:15 hours against proprietor – Shri Krishan Lal of M/s Krishi Vikas Kendra, Lalpur. From the record, it appears that the investigation was started, which resulted into filing of a charge-sheet only against the accused Chandrapal, S/o Mangli Jatav on 07.12.2000, while the named accused i.e., the present applicant was not charge-sheeted and a final report was submitted against him. Rather, he was made prosecution witness in the charge-sheet.

4. On the charge-sheet submitted against Chandrapal, cognizance was taken under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and a Criminal Case No. 393 of 2010, “State Vs. Chandrapal” was registered in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar. The aforesaid criminal case resulted into acquittal of the sole accused. A copy of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2011 is annexed as Annexure No.1 with the present C482 application, but while acquitting the accused – Chandrapal, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the S.O. Kichha to register a criminal case against the applicant, and, the then Bank Clerk, Bank Accountant, Bank Manager and to investigate and inform the court of learned Judicial Magistrate within 15 days. It is also reflected from the record that pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate while deciding the Criminal Case No. 393 of 2010, “State Vs. Chandrapal”, an F.I.R was lodged against the applicant along with four other accused including the then Bank Officials, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in Police Station Kichha on 03.03.2011 at 19:10 hours. After investigation, on the F.I.R dated 03.03.2011, a charge-sheet dated 26.06.2012 was submitted only against the applicant while against four other accused, a final report was submitted. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar took cognizance against the applicant and a Criminal Case No. 1417 of 2012, “State Vs. Krishan Lal and Another” was registered.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present C482 application has been filed challenging the orders referred hereinabove.

6. Heard Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant and M