Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

65. FIR No. 100 of 2018 repeatedly writes that the action of the petitioner was to destabilize the State Government to create violence, disturbance etc. In the instant FIR, the informant says that he has been harmed and public have been deceived by the action of the petitioner. But, in its counter affidavit the State in para 4 (in para wise reply) writes that in the instant FIR section 124 A IPC was added,once material came into light, which revealed that the petitioner was indulged in the activities with intend to create turmoil in the State of Uttarakhand by way of sustained and dishonest complaint against the Government of Uttarakhand. It means according to the State, the petitioner has been conspiring to destabilize the State. This is what is written in FIR No. 100 of 2018. This is what State says now. It means according to State itself the conspiracy which the petitioner hatched was to destabilize the State Government. The acts are separate, for example, conducting sting through first informant, who filed FIR No. 100 of 2018 and levelling false allegations against the informant by using social media publication. But, the larger umbrella, according to the State, is conspiracy against the State Government. This makes the whole transaction one.This part of social media publication was within the knowledge of State Government when FIR No. 100 of 2018 was challenged in WPCRL No. 2113 of 2018. Hence, the principle of sameness applies in the instant case. In furtherance of one conspiracy, various acts committed. Some acts were investigated in FIR No. 100 of 2018. The other acts which now form basis of instant FIR were within the knowledge of the State, when FIR No. 100 of 2018 was challenged. FIR No. 100 of 2018 and the instant FIR relate to the offences which were allegedly committed under a conspiracy, in the same transaction. In such a situation, any complaint with regard to allegations, which form part of social media publication and which were part of rejoinder affidavit inWPCRL No. 2113 of 2018 could have been investigated in FIR No. 100 of 2018. The IO would have further investigated the allegations in FIR No. 100 of 2018. But the second FIR i.e. FIR No. 265 of 2018 couldnot have been registered for this purpose. It is not permissible under law. Separate investigation on the instant FIR cannot be allowed. On this ground alone the FIR No. 265 of 2020 deserves to be quashed.

80. Offence under Section 124-A IPC has also been added against the petitioner. In its, counter-affidavit State has justified it in para no. 4, (in para wise reply) on the ground that once material came to light, which revealed that the petitioner was indulging in activities with the intent to create turmoil in the State of Uttarakhand by way of a sustained and dishonest campaign against the Government of Uttarakhand and his actions fall within the parameter of Section 124-A IPC, apart from other offences alleged against him. In the written argument, on behalf of State, on his point the following is stated.