Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.32 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Anju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 13 December, 2012
22] It is settled principle of law that issue of sustainability of two FIR
has to be examined on merits of each case, whether a subsequently
registered FIR is a second FIR about the same incident or offence or is based
on distinct and different set of facts and whether its scope of inquiry is
totally different and not identical one. There would not be any straight-
jacket formula to be applied uniformly to all cases. It will always be a
mixed question of law and facts depending on the merits of a given case
( emphasis supplied on Anju Chudhary's case 2013(6) SCC 384).
23] Now, in the instant case,we should examine the facts of the present
case in the light of settled legal provisions as referred supra. If the recitals
of both the FIRs are perused together and compared with each others, it
would find that the FIR giving rise to crime No. 80 of 2016, was filed by the
Police Inspector Shri Satish Gaikwad on 04-05-2016 at 10.26 a.m. for the
offence punishable under sections 307, 353, 336, 147, 148 read with section
149 of the IPC. The place of crime was shown near Hanuman Temple on the
public road in village Degaon. He has figured in all 200-300 miscreants for
alleged crime of rioting and attempt to murder of police personnels etc.
The complainant mentioned the names of in all 15 accused out of 200-300
accused in his FIR registered at the first point of time. It has been alleged
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2017 00:57:12 :::
{25}
CRAPLN 4222.16.odt
that the accused committed the offence of rioting with deadly weapons and
attacked the police personnels by pelting stones and boulder from the roof
of their houses. They smashed the glasses and caused damage to the police
vehicle. The alleged accused used the criminal force to deter the police
personnels from discharging their duties.
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs Cbi & Anr on 8 April, 2013
17] In Amitbhai Shah Vs. CBI, reported in (2013) Cri.L.J. 2313, it
has been reiterated that second FIR, if in the nature of cross complaint or
counter complaint is permissible, which is an exception carved out in Upkar
Singh's case (supra) to the effect that, when the second FIR consists of
alleged offences which are in the nature of cross-case/cross-complaint or
counter-complaint, such cross-complaint would be permitted as a FIR.
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surendra Kumar Kaushik And Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 7 January, 2010
19] In Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2013 ( Surendra Kaushik and
others Vs. State of UP) while dealing with the circumstances of registration
of two FIRs on the similar and identical cause of action and allegations, the
Honourable Supreme Court, in para.25, made the following observations :-