The High Court quashed the second FIR No. 133 under Sections 420 and 494 IPC, holding it an abuse of the process of the court due to double jeopardy, as the same offence was already included in a prior FIR No. 26.
FIR No. 133 dated 06.08.07 under Sections 420 and 494 IPC was quashed qua the petitioner.
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.
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
Date of Decision: 03.12.2008
Gurjit Singh son of Tarlok Singh, resident of Village Dhoop Sari, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Punjab.
2. Pawanpreet Kaur daughter of Gurmit Pal Singh, resident of Kapoori Gate, Majma Mohalla, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1- State.
Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, for quashing FIR No. 133, dated 06.08.07, under Sections 420 and 494 IPC (P4/T), Police Station City Batala, District Batala.
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
2
Dhoop Sari, on 10.10.02, according to sikh religious rites and ceremonies. She stayed in the house of her in-laws, for about four years. After the marriage, one daughter, was born from this wedlock. It was stated that her husband Gurjit Singh, was earlier working, as MES Contractor, but subsequently, started the work of mobile phones. During this period, many telephone calls of the girls, used to be received, on the mobile phone of her husband. She enquired of her husband, regarding telephone calls, but he always used to put off the matter, and scolded her. She told her mother-in-law, regarding this, but she also used to put off the matter, on the one pretext or the other. About 1 ½ years earlier to the lodging of the FIR, the husband of the complainant left her, at her parent's house. During this period, he used to come to her parent's house, and asked her to get divorce. She, however, did not agree to this proposal of her husband. Then Gurjit Singh, filed a divorce petition, in the Court, which was dismissed. It was further stated that Gurjit Singh, her husband, being already married, to her, had contracted marriage with Manpreet Kaur daughter of Ajit Singh. By doing this, he cheated her.
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
3
filed a divorce petition, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed by the Matrimonial Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated, in case, bearing No. 26 dated 02.03.07, under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, which was registered, at the instance of one Ajit Singh son of Rachhpal Singh. In that FIR, it was alleged, against the petitioner that he kidnapped Manpreet Kaur daughter of Ajit Singh on 28.02.07. It was further submitted that during investigation, in the FIR No. 26, Ajit Singh, complainant and Pawanpreet Kaur, respondent No. 2/complainant, joined hands together. Pawanpreet Kaur, respondent No. 2/complainant, appeared before the investigation agency, in FIR No. 26 and made her statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In that statement, she stated that the petitioner had already been married to her, but during the subsistence of that marriage, he contracted the second marriage, with one Manpreet Kaur. It was further submitted that, on the basis of statement of Pawanpreet Kaur, respondent No. 2/complainant, the investigating agency, added offence, punishable under Section 494 IPC, in FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07. It was further submitted that after the completion of investigation, in case FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07, challan under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC, before the trial Court, was presented. In the list, attached with the challan, in FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07, the name of respondent No. 2/complainant was also incorporated, as one of the witnesses. It was further submitted that when FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07, under Sections 363, 366, 368 IPC, had already been registered, on the basis of the statement of Ajit Singh, in which, respondent No. 2/complainant also made a statement and the
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
4
offence under Section 494 IPC, was added, the FIR, bearing No. 133, dated 06.08.07, on the same allegations, on the basis of the statement of respondent No. 2/complainant, could not be registered, as that would amount to double jeopardy, as also abuse of the process of Court. It was further submitted that, even FIR No. 133, dated 06.08.07, could not be registered, in view of the bar, created by Section 198 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
5
to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations set out in the complaint, or charge-sheet, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1) , it was held that in following categories of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powes, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases:
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
6
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
7
7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified.
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
8
this, he lodged FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07, under Sections 363, 366 and 368 IPC. During the investigation of that FIR, Pawanpreet Kaur, respondent No. 2/complainant, however, made a statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to the effect, that the petitioner contracted second marriage, with Manpreet Kaur, during the subsistence of his first marriage, with her, and as such, the investigating agency added the offence, punishable under Section 494 IPC, in that very FIR. The challan, in that FIR, has already been presented, in the Court of law. At the most, the petitioner could be allegedly prosecuted for the offence, punishable under Section 494 IPC, for having allegedly contracted second marriage, during the subsistence of first marriage with Pawanpreet Kaur, on her complaint. When she made a statement, during the investigation of the case FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07 the offence, under Section 494 IPC, was added. The grievance of respondent No. 2/complainant, was redressed, at that stage. Since the challan has already been presented, in FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that any other offence was also made out, from the allegations, contained in the FIR, and the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the charge can be framed therein also, as there could not be said to be any legal bar, in the way of the Court, in adopting such a procedure, the second FIR, bearing No. 133, dated 06.08.07, under Sections 420 and 494 IPC, almost, on the same allegations, may be at the instance of another complainant, would certainly be an abuse of the process of Court, and subject the petitioner to double jeopardy for facing the trial, in respect of the same offences twice. In T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others ,
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
9
(2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that 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 cognizable offence, or offences, and on entering the FIR, in the Station house diary, the officer-in-charge of a Police Station, has to investigate nor 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. If the gravamen of the charges, in the two FIRs, the first and the second, is in substance, and truth, the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be irregular and the Court cannot take cognizance of the same. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. As stated above, the allegations, in FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07, and the subsequent FIR No. 133, dated 06.08.07, are almost the same. Neither the second FIR No. 133, dated 06.08.07, under Sections 420 and 494 IPC, could be registered, nor fresh investigation therein, could be conducted, by the investigating agency, in the face of FIR No. 26, dated 02.03.07, under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 120-B IPC, in which, offence under Section 494 IPC, was added later on, on the statement of Pawanpreet Kaur, respondent No. 2/complainant, during the course of investigation. The case of the petitioner, thus, falls within one
Criminal Misc. No. 12882 of 2008
10
of the categories, enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). FIR No. 133, dated 06.08.07, under Sections 420 and 494 IPC (P4/T), registered at Police Station City Batala, Police District Batala, being clear abuse of the process of Court, in view of the circumstances explained above, is liable to be quashed.
03.12.2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second FIR No. 133 was liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of the court in view of a prior FIR No. 26 covering the same offence and occurrence.
Whether allowing the registration of the second FIR would amount to double jeopardy for the petitioner.
Whether the allegations in FIR No. 133 were void of any prima facie offence making the proceedings bars to constitution of inquiry under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and othersRelied on¶31
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1) · Who else cites this
T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & OthersApplied¶53
T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181,
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurjit Singh
State of Punjab
Pawanpreet Kaur
SHAM SUNDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
