Uttarakhand High Court
Mohan Singh Bisht And Two Others vs State Of Uttaranchal And Another on 13 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 872 of 2006
(Under Sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
Mohan Singh Bisht and two others ............... Applicants
Versus
State of Uttaranchal and another ............... Respondents
Present: Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/Opp.party No.1.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Date : 13th April, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) A First Information Report alleged commission of cognizable offences by, amongst others, the applicants. That First Information Report was investigated upon, whereafter a charge- sheet was filed against some of the F.I.R. named accused persons, but not against the applicants. The court directed investigation into the allegations in the F.I.R. against the applicants by the regular Police, inasmuch as, investigation resulting in filing of the charge- sheet was conducted by the Revenue Police. Accordingly, regular Police investigated into the F.I.R., whereafter it felt that since the F.I.R. was in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and not in relation to offences punishable under Sections 218, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, it is unable to file a charge-sheet upon conclusion of investigation pursuant to the said F.I.R. It appears that this Police report has also been accepted by the court. Subsequent thereto, a First Information Report has been filed, where the incident of the original First Information Report has been reiterated and on the basis thereof it has been insinuated that by reason of commission of such offence, applicants are liable to be convicted for having 2 committed offences punishable under Sections 218, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. This has resulted in filing of the present application under Section 482 of the Code.
2. The method adopted by the informant, in the instant case, as depicted above, in lodging two First Information Reports alleging commission of selfsame cognizable offences is unknown in law. The second First Information Report, challenged in the present application, is not sustainable and the same is quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that the court accepted the second police report without notice to the informant. That compelled the informant to file the second police report. In the event what the learned counsel has submitted is correct, the same would not, in law, permit the informant to lodge a second F.I.R. alleging commission of selfsame cognizable offence(s). For that, law requires the informant to take such other steps as are permissible in law.
3. In view of quashing of the said F.I.R., all proceedings in pursuance therewith stand automatically quashed.
4. The application stands disposed of.
( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 13.04.2012 P. Singh