A second FIR cannot be registered for the same cognizable offence based on the same incident, as it constitutes an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR No. 225/2016 registered on 01-05-2016 against him, at the instance of the respondent No.2, at Police Station, Rajouri, for commission of offence under Sections 376/109 RPC.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The case set up by the petitioner herein is that, on a false and frivolous complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, FIR No.629/2015 under Sections 376 RPC was registered against the petitioner on 08-12-2015 in Police Station, Rajouri and investigation was carried out. However, when the statement of respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate, the respondent No.2 denied the allegation and submitted that it was because of the mistake of the petition writer that such an allegation was leveled against the petitioner herein. It is stated that the respondent No.2 again approached the Judicial Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C with an application, which application was forwarded to the concerned Police. The Police, it is stated, without any basis registered the second FIR bearing FIR No. 225/2016 under Sections 376/109 RPC against the petitioner herein. It is further stated that respondent No.2 was forcing the petitioner to marry her and in case of his refusal he was threatened to be implicated in a false case.

3. It is submitted that once the respondent No.2 had admitted in her statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164-A Cr.P.C that no rape was ever committed upon her by the present petitioner, registration of second FIR on the same set of allegations was sheer abuse of process of law and, therefore, FIR No. 225/2016, which has been registered against the petitioner is required to be quashed. The petitioner has also relied upon several judgments to demonstrate that registration of second FIR on the same set of allegations, when the earlier FIR is under investigation, is illegal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while FIR No. 629/2015 under Section 376 RPC was registered against the petitioner herein and investigation was being carried out, the respondent No.2 made a statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate that no rape was committed upon her. However, out of vengeance the present petitioner is harassed by registering 2nd FIR on the same set of allegations against the petitioner in the same Police Station, knowing it fully that the complainant (respondent No.2 herein) has exiled from her allegations and has not supported the case of the police. Therefore the registration of the second FIR on the same facts is abuse of process of law and deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that after verifying the facts the FIR has been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has played fraud upon the respondent No.2 and has motivated her for marriage and it was on the pretext of these tactics that respondent No.2, in her statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C, refused the allegation of rape on her by the petitioner. However, after the statement was recorded, the petitioner refused to marry the respondent No.2 and forced by these circumstances, she filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel states that it was on the basis of this complaint filed by the respondent No.2 that FIR No. 225/2016 was registered against the petitioner herein. It has further been argued that since the proceedings in the FIR was stayed by this Court, no further investigation could be made in both the FIRs.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that FIR No. 629/2015 was registered against the petitioner on 08-12-2015 on the allegations of the respondent No.2 of having committed rape upon her