TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the criminal law into motion and, second, when on the similar and identical cause of action and allegations, FIR No. 425 of 2012 corresponding to Crime No. 475 of 2012 had already been registered, a second FIR could not have been lodged and entertained. The High Court, by the impugned order, has opined that it cannot be held that no prima facie case is disclosed and, thereafter, proceeded to issue certain directions in relation to surrender before the concerned court and grant of interim bail in view of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Amrawati and Anr. v. State of UP 2005 Cri. L.J. 755 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 437. 4. We are not adverting to the second part of the order as the controversy in this regard has not emerged before this Court in the present case. The assail to the validity of registration of second FIR has not been dealt with by the High Court. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, did not advance any contention and, rightly so, with regard to the existence of a prima facie case for registration of the FIR, but emphatically put forth the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of the members of the Governing Body of the society, and it was alleged that she is a member of the society which runs an educational institution, namely, Mayo International School, and the accused persons, namely, P.C. Gupta, Seema Gupta, Vikash Jain, Bhawna Jain, Sushil Jain, Shubhi Jain, Surender Kaushik, Kamlesh Sharma, Rajender Sharma, Virender Bhardwaj, Vimal Singh and Renu Sharma, having entered into a conspiracy had prepared forged documents regarding meetings held on different dates, fabricated signatures of the members and filed before the competent authority with the common intention to grab the property/funds of the society. Be it noted, the members had filed affidavits before the competent authority that they had never taken part in the meetings of the school management and had not signed any papers. As already stated, the said FIR pertained to offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior Counsel, that the FIR No. 442 of 2012 could not have been lodged and entertained as law prohibits lodgment of the second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 has been commended to us. 11. Chapter XII of the Code deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. As provided under Section 154 of the Code, every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence either given orally or in writing is required to be entered in a book to be kept by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. The said FIR, as mandated by law, has to pertain to a cognizable case. Section 2(c) of the Code defines cognizable offence which also deals with cognizable cases. It reads as follows: cognizable offence means an offence for which, and cognizable case means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant; 12. If the primary requirement is satisfied, an FIR is registered and the criminal law is set in motion and the officer-in-charge of the police station takes up the investigation. The question that has emerged for consideration in this case is whether after registration of the FIR and commencement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 of the Code. 15. It is worth noting that in the said case, the two-Judge Bench explained and distinguished the dictum in Ram Lal Narang (supra) by opining that the Court had indicated that the real question was whether the two conspiracies were in truth and substance the same and held that the conspiracies in the two cases were not identical. It further proceeded to state that the Court did not repel the contention of the Appellant regarding the illegality of the second FIR and the investigation based thereon being vitiated, but on facts found that the two FIRs in truth and substance were different since the first was a smaller conspiracy and the second was a larger conspiracy as it turned out eventually. Thereafter, the Bench explained thus: The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides for further investigation after forwarding of report under Sub-section (2) of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in the said case of T.T. Antony is understood by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents as the Code prohibiting the filing of a second complaint arising from the same incident. It is on that basis and relying on the said judgment in T.T. Antony case an argument is addressed before us that once an FIR is registered on the complaint of one party a second FIR in the nature of a counter-case is not registrable and no investigation based on the said second complaint could be carried out. 17. After so observing, the Court held that the judgment in T.T. Antony (supra) really does not lay down such a proposition of law as has been understood by the learned Counsel for the Respondent therein. The Bench referred to the factual score of T.T. Antony (supra) and explained thus: Having carefully gone through the above judgment, we do not think that this Court in the said cases of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala has precluded an aggrieved person from filing a counter-case as in the present case. To arrive at such a conclusion, the Bench referred to paragraph 27 of the decision in T.T. Antony (supra) wherein it has been stated that a case of fresh investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint by the same complainant based on the material gathered during the course of investigation. of course, this larger proposition of law laid down in Ram Lal Narang case is not necessary to be relied on by us in the present case. Suffice it to say that the discussion in Ram Lal Narang case is in the same line as found in the judgments in Kari Choudhary and State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha. However, it must be noticed that in T.T. Antony case, Ram Lal Narang case was noticed but the Court did not express any opinion either way. 20. Explaining further, the Court observed that if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony (supra) is to be accepted to have held that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint is prohibited under the Code, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences inasmuch as the real accused can take the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and get it registered by the jurisdictional police and then that would preclude the victim to lodge a complaint. 21. In Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre (supra), the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had occurred at the same place in close proximity of time and, therefore, they were two parts of the same transaction. 24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and Ors. against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh (supra), the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible. 25. In the case at hand, the Appellants lodged the FIR No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
