HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.928 of 2014
Date: 15.07.2014 Between:
Satish Singh .. Petitioner/A.1 AND State, rep.by Station House Officer CID Police Station, Hyderabad, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.928 of 2014
ORDER:
The first accused in Crime No.2 of 2014 on the file of the CID Police Station, Hyderabad seeks for the quashment of the same. The petitioner along with others allegedly committed offences under Sections 395, 148, 149 and 447 IPC as well as under Section 27 (2) of Arms Act read with Section 109 IPC. On 29.12.2013 the petitioner as well as the Manager of M/s. Madhu Techno Devices Private Limited lodged complaints. Each of them made allegations against the other side. Both the complaints were registered as FIRs. The complaint lodged on behalf of M/s. Madhu Techno Devices Private Limited was registered as FIR in Crime No.487 of 2013 under Sections 323, 427, 448 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC on 30.12.2013. The complaint lodged by the petitioner herein was registered as FIR in Crime No. 488 of 2013 under Sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC on the same day. Both the FIRs were registered by Begumpet Police Station.
2. It is the contention of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner that these complaints are case and counter case. He also submitted that the second respondent as the Managing Director of M/s. Madhu Techno Private Limited lodged an improvised version with the DGP, who in turn referred the representation of the second respondent to the first respondent-CID for investigation. He submitted a fresh FIR in Crime No.2 of 2014 was issued by CID Police Station, Hyderabad. His contention is that two FIRs are not maintainable with reference to the same incident and that the representation of the second respondent at best would be a statement u/s.162 Cr.P.C.
3. In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat Court held as under:
[1] , the Supreme “21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Surender Kaushik v. State of Uttar [2]
Pradesh . The Supreme Court referred to Upkar Singh v.
Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292] and held as under: “24. From the aforesaid decisions, it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in
respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filling of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh, the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.”
5. It, therefore, is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not permissible for the police to register a fresh FIR against the petitioner on the basis of the second complaint on the same facts.
6. Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the second respondent contended that Raju, complainant in Crime No.487 of 2013, is the manager of M/s. Madhu Techno Devices Private Limited and that police forcibly took him to the Police Station and obtained his signature and issued FIR in Crime No.487 of 2013. He also submitted that the additional DGP wanted to probe the case completely on the representation of the second respondent and contended that the second FIR in Crime No.2 of 2104 was a mere formality.
7. He also submitted that there is no bar for issuance of second FIR if new/different offence is alleged. Referring to lodging a case on this subject in T.T. Antony v.
[3]
State of Kerala , it was pointed out that there could be no
second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence. The Supreme Court observed that subsequent informations are covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Referring to T.T. Antony (3 supra), the Supreme Court observed in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of [4]
Investigation thus:
“37. This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution.”
8. The learned senior counsel for the second respondent also placed reliance upon Shivshankar Singh v.
[5]
State of Bihar . The Supreme Court took the view that
multiple FIRs in respect of the same incident with different versions are not barred. The learned senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that this petition for quashment of FIR in Crime No.2 of 2014 is bad and is liable to be rejected.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that FIRs in Crime Nos.461, 482, 488 and 489 of 2013 of Begumpet Police Station were directed to be investigated by CID, Hyderabad and that a common FIR was issued in Crime No.2 of 2014. The FIR in Crime No.2 of 2014, however, disclosed that the FIR was issued on the basis of the complaint by the second respondent. At any rate, comprehensive investigation is in progress in respect of various crimes including Crime Nos.487 and 488 of 2013, which are complaints by the rival parties.
10. Added to it, it may be noticed that in Crime No.2 of 2014, the offence u/s.395 IPC as well as u/s.27 (2) of Arms Act are included, which were not included in Crime Nos.487, 488 and 461 of 2013. I, therefore, consider that the new facts revealed different and distinct allegations altogether on the complaint of the second respondent, so much so, registration of a fresh FIR is not barred on new facts. At any rate, where the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that comprehensive investigation is in progress, I consider that it would be appropriate to permit police to proceed with the investigation. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct police to proceed with the investigation. Where the petitioner contended that the facts in the earlier cases are identical with the facts in the present case, I consider that it would be appropriate to direct police not to arrest the petitioner in respect of Crime No.2 of 2014 of CID Police Station, Hyderabad pending investigation.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of granting liberty to police to proceed with the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2014 of CID Police Station, Hyderabad. However, there shall be no arrest of the petitioner during pendency of the investigation in Crime No.2 of 2014. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 15.07.2014 Isn
[1] (2010) 12 SCC 254
[2] (2013) 5 SCC 148
[3] (2001) 6 SCC 181
[4] (2013) 6 SCC 348
[5] (2012) 1 SCC 130