Suman Shyam DECISION
Suman Shyam, J.
1. Heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 1. None has appeared for the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 was absent even on the previous occasion.
2. By filing this Criminal Petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) dated 21.12.2016 based on which, All Women Police Station Case No. 214/2016 was registered under sections 498(A)/354((b)/326/305/34 IPC, on the ground that a second F.I.R. on the same occurrence is not permissible in the eye of law.
3. It appears from the record that the respondent No. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. on 15.12.2016 before the Officer-in-Charge of Kamalpur Police Station based on which, Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 176/2016 was registered under section 498(A) of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the four accused persons named in the said F.I.R. and another viz., Ms. Kamini Deka. The learned trial court has framed charge against the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 1610/2016 corresponding to Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 176/2016 and the trial is under progress. However, within seven days of the F.I.R. dated 15.12.2016, the respondent No. 2, had lodged another F.I.R. on 21.12.2016 based on which, All Women P.S. Case No. 214/2016 has been registered.
4. By referring to both the F.I.Rs. Mr. Das submits that the informant has lodged the subsequent F.I.R. reporting the same incident only to cause undue harassment and injury to the interest of the accused persons, who are already facing trial in connection with G.R. Case No. 1610/2016. Contending that fresh investigation by the Police based on a second F.I.R. reporting the same cognizable offence was impermissible in the eye of law, Mr. Das has prayed for quashing of the subsequent F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016. In support of his aforesaid argument, Mr. Das has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
1. MANU/SC/0365/2001 : (2001) 6 SCC 181 [T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & others]
2. MANU/SC/0643/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 254 [Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & others]
3. MANU/GH/0057/2013 : 2013 (2) GLT 822 [Sudhir Dasgupta and others vs. State of Assam and others].
5. Mr. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, has fairly submitted that the second F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016 relates to the same incident and therefore, was not maintainable in the eye of law. The learned Addl. P.P. further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in MANU/SC/0329/2013 : (2013) 6 SCC 348, the second F.I.R. cannot be the basis of fresh investigation with regard to the same cognizable offence. The learned Addl. P.P., has, however, argued that the F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016 can be treated as a statement of the victim under section 162 Cr.P.C. and can be acted upon by the learned trial court in G.R. Case No. 1610/2016 in accordance with law.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record.
7. From a careful examination of the F.I.Rs. dated 15.12.2016 and 21.12.2016 it appears that both the F.I.Rs. had been lodged with a view to report the incident pertaining to the same occurrence. Although there are some minor variations in the narrative in both the F.I.Rs., yet, this Court is of the opinion that such variation merely highlights different parts of the same transaction.
8. In the case of Babubhai (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if both the F.I.Rs. relate to the same occurrence and narrates incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction, then the second F.I.R. would be liable to be quashed.
9. In the case of T.T. Antony (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a second or successive F.I.Rs, 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 would not be maintainable.
10. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the informant of both the F.I.Rs. is the same person and the nature of allegation pertaining to the commissioning of cognizable offence are also the same in both the cases. If that be so, the registration of a police case and further investigation in the matter based on the second F.I.R. would not be permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai (supra) and T.T. Antony (supra). Rather, in view of the law laid down in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra) relied upon by the learned Addl. P.P. it can at best be held that the F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016 merely furnishes further information to the investigating agency with regard to the same cognizable offence which was reported by the F.I.R. dated 15.12.2016.
11. In the case of Sudhir Dasgupta and others (supra) this Court while dealing with an issue of similar nature, had observed that the subsequent proceeding would not be maintainable. It was, however, held that if necessary, the learned trial court would be entitled to take recourse to the provisions of Sections 319 and 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
12. For the reasons stated herein above, I am of the view that the second F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016, based on which All Women P.S. Case No. 214/2016 was registered, is unsustainable in the eye of law. The same is accordingly quashed.
13. Before parting with the record, it would be relevant to note herein that although as many as seven accused have been named in the F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016, yet, charge has been framed in G.R. Case No. 1610/2016 only against five of them. As such, there is no proceeding against the remaining two persons named in the F.I.R. dated 21.12.2016. The learned trial court is, therefore, granted liberty to invoke jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. and proceed in the matter in accordance with law if the facts and circumstances of the case justifies so.
Revision petition stands disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.