High Court allowed revision challenging discharge rejection order, holding registration of second FIR for same incident on date 20.09.2016 violated Article 21 and CrPC provisions as it was not a counter-case.
Impugned order dated 03.03.2017 setting aside rejection of Section 228 CrPC application for discharge in revision case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 418 of 2017
Order reserved on : 21.08.2019 Order delivered on : 21.11.2019
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Manoj Paranjape, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Reena Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V ORDER
21/11/2019
2
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989'). The applicant's application filed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for discharging him of the offence has been rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.
3
the complaint is false or stems out of malafides to blackmail or to wreck some personal vengeance for settling and scoring personal vendetta or by way of some counter blast or found to be misused of judicial process. He also submits that it is the duty of the court to examine and judicially scrutinize whether on its facts, the FIR and challan do constitute any offence under the Act. The applicant is facing two criminal trial for the same incident, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Amitbhai Anichandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 1.
1 (2013) 6 SCC 348
2 (2018) 4 SCC 579
4
No.166/2016 was lodged at 13.00 PM and second having Crime No.168/2016 lodged at 14.30 PM. The most interesting aspect of the FIRs is that the date and time of occurrence of incident is same i.e. 20.09.2016 at 11.00 AM. The first FIR having Crime No.166/2016 has been lodged by complainant Chandrahas Chandrakar under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B and 323 IPC and the second FIR having Crime No.168/2016 has been lodged by Praduman Khadiya under Sections 294, 323, 506-B IPC and Section 3 (I) (x) of the Act, 1989.
37. This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T. Antony3 , this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross-case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The following conclusion in paras 19, 20 and 27 of that judgment are relevant which read as under : (SCC pp. 196-97 & 200)
“19. The scheme of CrPC is that an ofÏcer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation
3 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048
5
and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC.
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 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR 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 congnizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the ofÏcer 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 CrPC.
6
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 CrPC 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 Narang case4 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 filing the final report under Section 173 (2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, 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 under way or final report under Section 173 (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”
4 1979 SCC (Cri) 479
7
The above referred declaration of law by this Court has never been diluted in any subsequent judicial pronouncements even while carving out exceptions.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
vijay pekde
2 issues framed by the court
Whether registration of a second FIR for the same incident violates provisions of the CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether impugned order rejecting applicant's application for discharge should be sustained when second FIR at different time pertains to same transaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amitabh Chandra Pandey v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶30
(2013) 6 SCC 348 · Who else cites this
P. Sreekumar v. State of KeralaRelied on¶23
(2018) 4 SCC 579 · Who else cites this
T.T. Antony v. State of KeralaRelied on¶31
2001 SCC (Cri) 1048 · Who else cites this
Narang v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶38
1979 SCC (Cri) 479 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Pramod Singh
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
