Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O. Kantilal Gujrathi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:19347-DB
(1) appln-2832-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2832 OF 2019
Rajesh S/o Kantilal Gujrathi
Age:- 47 Years, Occu:- Stamp Vendor
R/o. Gurudatta Colony, Shirpur
Tq Shirpur, Dist Dhule. ..Applicant
(Original Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. Nilesh S/o Mohan Mahajan,
Age: 30 Years, Occu:- Agriculture,
R/o Village Boradi Tq. Shirpur Dist Dhule. ..Respondents
(Orig. Complainant)
...
Mr. V. P. Raje, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. D. S. Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 26th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th APRIL, 2026.
JUDGMENT:-
1. The applicant seeks quashment of FIR in Crime No.179/2019 dated 23.06.2016 registered with Shirpur Police Station, Dist. Dhule for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 406, 408, 465, 471, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of directions issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shirpur in Miscellaneous Application No.312/2016 at the instance of respondent no.2. In nutshell, it is alleged that land Gut Nos.78/1A (2) appln-2832-2019.odt and 78/1B are owned by respondent no.2. The accused nos.1 and 2 manipulated NA order in respect of land, drawn plots and in connivance with officers of Land Record and City Survey executed sale deeds and cheated respondent no.2. So far as applicant/accused no.8 is concerned, it is alleged that accused nos.1 to 6 availed his services for preparing false documents.
3. Although Crime No.179/2016 was registered as per direction of learned Magistrate, Investigating Officer had submitted Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.38/2026 seeking to 'file' FIR on ground that subject matter of present FIR is same as FIR No.150/2016, in which charge-sheet is filed against accused persons. Further, in case of additional evidence, charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure can be filed in same crime. However, learned Magistrate declined request on ground that there is no provision to 'file' FIR or prayers of Investigating Officer are not in consonance with procedure.
4. In light of aforesaid background, Mr. Raje, learned Advocate appearing for applicant submits that since 2016 Crime No.179/2016 is pending investigation. Already for similar allegation, Crime No.150/2016 has been registered and charge- sheet has been filed. Even otherwise, taking into account allegations in FIR, no case can be made out against applicant for any of alleged offence. The applicant is Stamp Vendor and Bond (3) appln-2832-2019.odt Writer. Assuming that he has provided services to accused persons, it would not attract ingredients of alleged offences. He would submit that even otherwise, when there is no progress in investigation since 2016 and already an offence is registered on similar set of allegations, FIR as against applicant is liable to be quashed and set aside in exercise of inherent powers.
5. Per contra, Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP appearing for respondent-State and Mr. Bagul, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 submits that applicant is not accused in Crime No.150/2016. The allegations against applicant/accused are based on additional allegations which form part and parcel of present FIR. Therefore, it needs to be investigated and proceeding cannot be quashed abruptly at premature stage.
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of FIR, it is discernible that in nutshell FIR alleges that land belonging to respondent no.2 was converted for non-agriculture use on the basis of forged NA order in collusion with officers of Land Record and City Survey Department and plots were drawn and sold to different persons. As such, accused persons cheated informant and drawn financial benefits. So far as role of present applicant is concerned, he alleged to have supplied requisite Bond Papers and also typed contents using his computer. Assuming that aforesaid allegations (4) appln-2832-2019.odt are true and correct on their face value, question that arises is whether, in absence of allegation that applicant derived financial benefit or was instrumental in cheating person, no offence can be made out against him. The allegations in FIR may constitute offence against person, who used false NA order or manipulated record of City Survey or used false document to take entries in City Survey or sold plots to third person. The person who has scribed documents or bond vendor who has provided bond in course of his regular business cannot be attributed commission of offences under Sections 420, 406 or 465 of Indian Penal Code, in absence of specific allegations that he used false or fabricated documents for his own benefit.
7. In case of T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others 1, it has been well settled by Supreme Court that second FIR in case of offence relating to same transaction is impermissible, except where there are cross-cases or offences are disclosed, which were not part of first FIR. Similar, analogy is considered by Supreme Court in subsequent judgment in case of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another2.
8. In present case, careful reading of FIR No.150/2016 alongwith present FIR, it can be observed that allegations in both FIR relates to one and same transaction. The first FIR is filed by 1 (2001) 6 SCC 181.
2 (2013) 6 SCC 348.
(5) appln-2832-2019.odt one Mazhar Bismilla Bagwan against present informant, his mother and two other accused. The present FIR is lodged by informant against applicant and other seven persons. However, allegations are very similar in nature in respect of same property. It appears that, on completion of investigation in Crime No.150/2016, charge-sheet is already filed.
9. In aforesaid backdrop, it can be observed that there cannot be a second FIR or a fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information in respect of one and same cognizable offence. Only one FIR can be registered in respect of commission of cognizable offence on basis of first information entered in Station Diary by officer in-charge of Police Station, under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Any subsequent information received would be covered under Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and officer in-charge of Police Station is duty bound not only to investigate cognizable offence reported in FIR, but also other connected offences found to have been committed in course of same transaction or occurrence. It is obligatory on Investigating Officer that even after submission of report under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, if he comes across further information pertaining to same incident, no investigation can be carried without leave of Court. Similarly, further evidence, if collected in (6) appln-2832-2019.odt pursuance to such information, can be made part of report under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Analysis of factual scenario in present case would show that intially FIR has been registered in Crime No.150/2016 for very same transaction, subsequently informant approached Magistrate by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application on same set of information. The learned Magistrate passed order under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Eventually, Crime No.179/2016 has been registered. This Court finds that although second FIR has been registered, Investigating Officer could have filed additional charge-sheet in terms of Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure in proceeding initiated vide FIR No.150/2016. Therefore, registration of second FIR No.179/2016 is impermissible, particularly when applicant was shown as accused in previous FIR for one and same transaction.
11. In result, this Court has no hesitation to hold that case is made out to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. In result, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B).
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/April-2026