1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following prayers:
“8.(a) Quash and set aside the FIR vide IC.R. No.220 of 2011 dated 17.11.2011, filed at the Deesa City Police Station, Deesa; &
(b) Direct the police to file final report under provisions of S.173 of Cr.P.C. On basis of the “First Information” dated 15.11.111 given by the Petitioner No.2; &
(c) During the pendency and final hearing of this petition, stay the further proceedings in IC.R. No.220 of 2011 dated 17.11.2011, filed at the Deesa City Police Station, Deesa; &
(d) During the pendency and final hearing of this petition, direct the police not arrest the Petitioner No.1 & 3 in pursaunce of the impugned FIR vide IC.R.No.220 of 2011 filed at the Deesa City Police Station, Deesa; &
(e) Pass any other necessary order in the interest of justice;”
2. Heard Learned Advocate Shri Chaitanya Joshi for the petitioners and learned APP Ms.Archana Raval for Respondent No.1 State of Gujarat.
3. Learned Advocate Shri Chaitanya Joshi for the petitioners tried to clarify about earlier Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2012 which was filed for the similar prayers, saying that he may be permitted to amend. He has also stated that it was qua one of the petitioners herein and therefore the present petition qua other two petitioners would be maintainable on merits. He has also made submissions with regard to the merits of the matter and has referred to the papers that earlier the complaint given by the petitioners has been registered or noted in the police station by the Police Officer (PSO) and it has been registered as Accidental Death No.22/2011. He has, therefore, submitted that again FIR cannot be registered by the police and the version stated by the petitioners ought to have been registered as the FIR on 15.11.2011, instead of the present FIR which was registered as First FIR No.220/2011 dated 17.11.2011.
4. He has referred to the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also referred to the judgment in the case of T.T. Antony V. State of Kerala reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 and pointedly referred to Para 17 of the judgment in support of his submissions and emphasized with regard to the procedure which was required to be followed. He submitted that when the station officer has made an entry, on receipt of an information then he must have registered it as an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and any other information shall be a statement under Section 161 or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has also submitted that the earlier petition i.e. Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2012, which has been rejected with the reasoned order was on different count and the ingredients for the offences under Section 304B are not fulfilled or attracted and the submissions he is making now, have not been raised or dealt with in the earlier petition i.e. Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2012.
5. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Upkar Singh V. Ved Prakash reported in 2004 (13) SCC 292 and has referred to the Para 22, saying that on earlier occasion the Court had referred to this judgment with reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T.
Antony V. State of Kerala reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181. Again further he submitted that there has to be sameness or similarity in the averments and if there are two different versions then the FIR could be registered. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Babubhai V. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 746 and referring to the observation made in Para 17, again he has tried to say that the present FIR which has been recorded as FIR being I-C.R.No.220 of 2011, is in fact a statement under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside.
6. He has also submitted that referring to the facts of the case that after 2 days of the incident, when the after death ceremony has been performed, as an afterthought, after due deliberation and contemplation and with malafide intentions merely to harass the petitioners, the younger brother of the deceased has filed the present complaint. Learned Advocate Shri Joshi has submitted that present petition may be allowed.
7. Learned APP Ms. Archana Raval submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of suppression of material fact that earlier Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2012 has been filed by petitioner No.2 and the same has been rejected and in spite of that the present petition has been filed in the names of three petitioners including petitioner No.2 who was petitioner in earlier petition. Therefore, it was submitted by her that the present petition may be dismissed only on this ground. In support of this submission, she has referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s. Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India reported in JT 2007 (10) SC 218 and pointedly referred to the observation that:-
“if the applicant/petitioner does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter.”
8. She has also submitted that even otherwise, the present petition is not maintainable as the arguments which have been canvassed could have been made when the earlier petition was filed and when the contentions which have been raised cannot be raised subsequently. She has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Mahendra Singh and others v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 387 in support of her submissions. She has also submitted that subsequent petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the same FIR is not permissible and the same may be dismissed on merits.
9. Learned APP Ms.Archana Raval has submitted that as referred to in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Upkar Singh V. Ved Prakash reported in 2004 (13) SCC 292, the Hon'ble Apex Court has itself water-downed the judgment in the case of T.T.Antony (supra) and it has been specifically observed that if the counter complaint is prohibited then it could lead to serious consequences which have been envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court. She has submitted that in the case of the present petitioners initially when the version was given by petitioner no.2, an accidental death Case No.22/2011 was registered. However, further information and investigation has revealed, which has lead to the aforesaid FIR. Therefore, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure would be exercised. Learned APP has submitted that the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited. Therefore, at this stage, when the facts are uncleared before the Court and considering the conduct of the petitioners, the present petition may be dismissed.
10. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be entertained or not.
11. The first aspect is with regard to the maintainability of the present petition. As can be seen from the order passed in Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2012 and the prayers made therein, it can be seen that the prayers prayed in the present petition are identical and seeking the quashing of the FIR No.220 of 2011 registered with Deesa Police Station under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The finding of fact, which is sought to be made, is that the earlier Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2012 has been filed by one petitioner and the present petition has been filed by the three petitioners. Therefore, whether the present petition is maintainable or not on the ground of suppression of fact or resjudicata is required to be considered.
12. As the petitioners in the present petition are all family members and it is not that one would not be aware about the proceedings having been filed by one of the petitioners qua the family members earlier. It may be a different matter in case where the persons are not family members. In the present case, the offences alleged are with regard to 304(B), 306, 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and the contentions have been raised as if the petitioners are not aware about the previous petitions. Moreover, the two petitioners can file the present petition as they were not a party in earlier proceedings, it would still reflecting the attitude of the petitioner No.2, inasmuch as, at least qua the Petitioner No.2, the present petition would be barred on a proceedings analogous to resjudicata.
13. Therefore, though the petition may not be maintainable at least qua the petitioner No.2, it has not been mentioned conveniently, in the present petition. Further, it would have been desirable had it been mentioned. Moreover, even if the technical view may not be taken as the petition would be maintainable qua other two petitioners, who have not been the petitioners in earlier petition being Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2012. The propriety demands that it should have been clearly stated in the present petition.
14. Be that as it may, the submissions which have been made by learned Advocate Shri Chaitanya Joshi are basically referring to judgment in the case of T.T. Antony V. State of Kerala reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181 and has much emphasized that when the police station officer has made an entry at the instance of petitioner No.2 in the said diary registering it as an Accidental Death No.22 of 2011 he ought to have registered it as an FIR and this present FIR, which is subsequent FIR can be filed as a statement under Section 161 of 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forthwith, is misconceived. In fact the reliance placed by learned Advocate Shri Joshi on T.T. Antony's case (supra) even while arguing the earlier matter was also not accepted and T.T.Antony's case has already been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of Upkar Singh V. Ved Prakash reported in 2004 (13) SCC 292, wherein it has been specifically observed in Para 22 of the judgment as under:
“22. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T.Antony's case is to be accepted as holding a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear form the hypothetical example given herein below i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving this version of the incident in question consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to books. This cannot be purport of the Code.”
15. Moreover, it is well accepted that every information given initially may not be treated as an FIR like the cryptic message or a same version disclosed to the police. However, subsequently if the information about the commission of the offence is given, the FIR could be registered as stated hereinabove.
Moreover, one cannot overlooked the realities of the ingenuous ways found out by the persons in such incident. Therefore, what has been happening sometime in such incidents, the person (accused) would first rush to the police station and give the cause of accidental death to save him, which clearly may turn out to be otherwise. Therefore, if the submissions which have been made by learned Advocate Shri Joshi are to be accepted, it would result into injustice.
16. The another facet of the submission, which the learned advocate has referred to, and relied upon the judgment in the case of Babubhai V. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 746, also cannot have any application to the facts of the case inasmuch as the facts were totally different and it was with regard to registration of the FIR in context of the peculiar facts of the case, and in that background, the submissions were considered. Therefore, the observation has been made, which is not the case herein in the case of the present petitioners. The present FIR gives a different version and the moot question is whether the same can be quashed at the threshold in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to the case of T.T. Antony (supra) and Upkar Singh (supra) in a judgment in the case of Babubhai V. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 746, has made an observation in Para 14, whether the second FIR would be maintainable or permissible. Here in the case of the present petitioners, the versions are different with regard to the same episode or the incident, and therefore, without any further elaboration, the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Joshi that the FIR being I-CR No.220 of 2011 may be quashed and set aside on the ground that it is only a statement as recorded under Section 161 or 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be readily accepted.
18. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements has laid down the guidelines expressing the word of caution that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC should be exercised with care and circumspection. Therefore, in light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the scope of Section 482, including the observations made in case of Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2008 SCC 1614.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 2781, in case of Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., has observed as under:
“30.We may reiterate and emphasise that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, moreso when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involded, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.”
Therefore, in such circumstances when the facts are hazy and uncleared the Court cannot come to any conclusion and the present petition cannot be entertained for quashing the FIR as sought to be canvased.
20. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
mehul (RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.)