Bombay High Court
Gopal S/O. Bhikchand Agrawal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:19349-DB
(1) appln-2831-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2831 OF 2019
Gopal S/o Bhikchand Agrawal,
Age:- 45 Years, Occu:- Business,
R/o. Behind Bhandari Talkies, 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 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. One Nilesh Mahajan filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.312/2016 before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shirpur seeking direction to register FIR under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate allowed application (2) appln-2831-2019.odt vide order dated 22.06.2016 and directed Police Station Officer, Shirpur to register offence under Sections 420, 467, 471, 465, 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused persons. In deference to aforesaid order, FIR in Crime No.179/2016 came to be registered against in all 8 accused persons including applicant.
3. In nutshell it has been alleged that agriculture land in Gut Nos.78/1/A and 78/1/B situated at Boradi, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule is owned by informant. The accused nos.1 and 2 manipulated NA order and shown division of plots in land record. Eventually, they prepared false City Survey Record in connivance with Government Officers. The land in question is of new tenure. Till this date, name of informant is appearing in 7/12 extract. However, accused persons on the basis of false and bogus record, executed sale deeds of plots. It is alleged that accused nos.7 and 8 have prepared false documents and committed offence.
4. Mr. Raje, learned Advocate appearing for applicant raises two fold contentions. Firstly, he submits that already for same allegation Crime No.150/2016 has been registered with Shirpur Police Station. The applicant is made accused no.3 in that crime. Therefore, second FIR for same offence is barred by law. Secondly, he contends that even assuming that allegations in FIR are true and correct, no offence can be made out against applicant. He would, therefore, submit that continuation of criminal proceeding (3) appln-2831-2019.odt on the basis of impugned FIR would be abuse of process of law and seeks to invoke inherent powers of this Court to quash FIR.
5. Mr. Gaikwad, learned APP and Mr. Bagul, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 do not dispute that for same set of facts and allegations, FIR in Crime No.150/2016 has been registered. The learned APP informs that Investigating Officer had submitted report to concerned Magistrate pointing out that already FIR in Crime No.150/2016 is registered for very same offence and, therefore, sought permission to close investigation in Crime No.179/2016.
6. 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.
7. In present case, careful reading of FIR in Crime 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 one Mazhar Bismilla Bagwan against present informant, his mother and two other accused, who were subsequently added i.e. 1 (2001) 6 SCC 181.
2 (2013) 6 SCC 348.
(4) appln-2831-2019.odt present applicant and one Arun Ramdas Fulpagare. 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.
8. 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 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 thereafter 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 come across any further information pertaining to same incident, no investigation can be carried without leave of Court and further evidence if collected in pursuance to such information, can be made part of report under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(5) appln-2831-2019.odt
9. Analysis of factual scenario in present case would show that although FIR was registered in Crime No.150/2016 for very same transaction, subsequently informant had approached Magistrate by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application with same set of information. The learned Magistrate was pleased to pass order under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Eventually, Crime No.179/2016 has been registered. This Court finds that Investigating Officer could have filed additional charge-sheet in terms of Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure in proceeding initiated vide FIR in Crime No.150/2016 after getting necessary permission from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, registration of second FIR in Crime No.179/2016 would be illegal, particularly when applicant is made accused in previous proceeding for one and same transaction.
10. In result, this Court has no hesitation to hold that case is made out to allow this application in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. In result, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B) to the extent of applicant.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/April-2026