Quashed

Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2024CRLMP/1584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a subsequent FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, holding that registering a fresh FIR for the same incident after an earlier FIR was filed was irregular. The court relied on T.T. Antony, directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC instead.

What did the court decide?

Subsequent FIR No.0064 dated 14.02.2024 quashed. Investigating officer in prior FIR free to investigate matter in entirety.

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:27942]

[CRLMP-2615/2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2615/2024

¶6

Kishan Singh S/o Sh. Him Singh, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Kanadeo-Ka-Guda, Police Station, Tehsil And Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶7

Udai Singh S/o Sh. Vadan Singh, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Farara, Nohara-Ki-Bhagar, Police Station, Tehsil And Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶8

Bhagwat Singh S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village - Gajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Kelwara, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶12

Smt. Shanta Darji D/o Sh. Om Prakash Darji, R/o Village Farara, Near Patwar Bhawan, Police Station - Rajnagar, Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1584/2024

¶16

Ramesh Chandra S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Ji Khateek, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Kalalvati Rajnagar Tehsil And District Rajsamand Rajasthan

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶20

The Sho, Police Station Rajnagar Dist Rajsamand

¶21

Smt Shanta Darji D/o Om Prakash Darji, R/o Near Patwar Bhawan Farara Thesil And District Rajsamand

¶22

Smt Geeta Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash Darji, R/o Near Patwar Bhawan Farara Thesil And District Rajsamand

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2051/2024

¶25

Shankar Lal S/o Shri Lalu Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/ o Kankroli Tehsil Kankroli Dist Rajsamand

¶26

(2of 5) [CRLMP-2615/2024]

¶27

[2024:RJ-JD:27942]

¶28

Mohan Lal S/o Shri Ganesh Lal, Aged About 66 Years, R/ o Kankroli Tehsil Kankroli Dist Rajsamand

¶29

----Petitioners

¶30

Versus

¶31

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶32

The Sho Of Police Station Rajnagar, Dist Rajsamand 3. Shanti Darji S/o Shri Omprakash Darji, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Patwar Bhawan K Paas Farara Rajnagar Rajsamand Dist Rajsamand

¶33

Smt Geeta Devi W/o Shri Om Prakash Darji, R/o Patwar Bhawan K Paas Farara Rajnagar Rajsamand Dist Rajsamand

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	S.P. Sharma.
	Mr.	Abhimanyu Singh for
	Mr.	Pradeep Shah.
	Mr.	Dinesh Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Gaurav Singh, PP. Ashok Godara.

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order(Oral)

¶37

10/07/2024

¶38

Aforesaid three petitions are being disposed of vide this common order, as the challenge therein is to an FIR No.0064 dated 14.02.2024 registered at Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC. 2. Succinct factual narrative first. For the sake of brevity, same is being taken from S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2615/2024:2.1. Respondent(Complainant) No. 2 lodged a report against eight named accused persons and one of the concerned officer of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand, with the allegation similar to those previously presented in another an FIR lodged against the same accused persons by one Mohan Lal. The report revealed that

[2024:RJ-JD:27942]

[CRLMP-2615/2024]

(3of 5)

co-accused Ramesh Chandra, in order to defraud the complainant and others, misused his office as an elected member of the Municipal Board, Rajsamand. He allegedly had certain land converted to abadi status and obtained patta Nos.79 & 74 of 1994 (lease deed) in his name. Thereafter, he fraudulently sold the same land to various persons. The report further alleged that Ramesh Chandra, along with other co-accused persons, had hatched a conspiracy to carry out this illegal act.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to grounds taken in the petition have also canvassed arguments on the lines of grounds taken in the petition. The same, inter alia, are that as repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court, multiple FIRs for the same offence(s) cannot be investigated. As per judgment rendered in T.T. Antony Vs State of Kerala and others : 2001 (6) SCC 181 , after filing a report under Section 173(2) CrPC, police should conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC if new information emerges, rather than registering a fresh FIR. Registering a second FIR and conducting a fresh investigation for the same incident is irregular, and no court can take cognizance of such an offence. The High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the subsequent FIR if it discloses the same facts and incident as the first FIR. While the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously, it is justified when the FIR does not disclose any cognizable or non-cognizable offence. Preventive protection should be provided to the petitioner to avoid serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice resulting from the ongoing investigation.

[2024:RJ-JD:27942]

[CRLMP-2615/2024]

(4of 5)

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶48

At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the petitions, urging that not only the complainants are different, but even the plots in question, which led to the registration of the current FIR, are different than those, which are under investigation in the prior FIR.

¶49

I am unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the complainant. Moreover, in this case perusal of the FIR No.0350 dated 04.10.2023, reveals that the particulars of patta of the land are same, as in the subsequent FIR, which is under challenge herein.

¶50

Aside from the above, it transpires that civil proceedings, qua the ownership of the land, under the same patta, are pending before the Divisional Commissioner in Case No.1/2023 (Annexure P/8of S.B. Crilminal Misc. Petition No.1584/2024). Prima facie, it thus appears that not only civil proceedings, qua the land in question are going on, but even otherwise criminal culpability, if any, is already under the purview of the Investigating Officer in the prior FIR.

¶51

In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioners rightly rely on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) , relevant of which is reproduced herein below:-

¶52

“19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer 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 and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under

(5of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:27942]

[CRLMP-2615/2024]

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.”

¶57

In the aforesaid premise, without commenting on whether or not the FIR under question is maintainable in view of the civil dispute, I am of the view that being a subsequent FIR qua the same offence as also the land, for which, an earlier FIR has already registered, the subsequent FIR ought not to have been registered and the same is accordingly quashed.

¶58

It is however, made clear that the investigating agency in the prior FIR shall be at liberty to investigate the matter in entirety, qua the complete land under patta in question and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶59

It is made clear that quashing of the subsequent FIR is not to be construed as an opinion on merits of the allegations of the complainants qua the petitioners herein.

¶60

The Investigating Officer shall proceed further with an independent mind and unravel the entire controversy after fair and proper investigation.

¶61

Disposed of accordingly.

¶62

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶63

(ARUN MONGA), J

¶64

Whether Fit for Reporting:

¶65

49-51-Jitender

¶66

Yes / No

Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajupuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Ritesh Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Irshad Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal @ Shankarlal Vs State

Gheesu Lal and Ors. Vs State

Rajmal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan