AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
None is present for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 despite sufficient service.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 314 of 2018, lodged on 26.10.2018 under Sections 228 and 323 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, is completely incorrect, false, and an abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that regarding the alleged incident dated 25.10.2018, the F.I.R. was wrongly registered. He submitted that F.I.R. No. 312 of 2018 regarding the said incident dated 25.10.2018 had already been registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar on 25.10.2018 at 23:50 hours under Sections 147, 323, and 500 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that two F.I.Rs cannot be registered for the same incident. The F.I.R. registered first is the primary F.I.R., and the investigation should continue under it regardless of the facts or evidence collected during the course of the investigation. In contrast, the present F.I.R. is a second F.I.R. for the same alleged incident. Thus, it is an abuse of the process of law and is unsustainable. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001 AIR SC 2637. Paragraph Nos. 19, 20, and 21 of the said judgment are quoted below:
"19.An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report - F.I.R. postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C. and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives a fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H - the real offender-who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) of Cr.P.C., as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the concerned Magistrate even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.
20.The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of entry of the First Information Report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.
21.From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C."
Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the criminal appeal and submitted that there are different perspectives regarding the registration of the F.I.R. The incident took place inside the courtroom and directly caused a disturbance to the proceedings of the court. There is no illegality in registering the second F.I.R. Therefore, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The first F.I.R., registered as Case Crime No. 312 of 2018 under Sections 147, 323, and 500 I.P.C., was lodged against the appellant, Ajay Kumar Yadav and 100–150 unknown advocates. The said F.I.R. was lodged by Manoj, son of Ram Naresh Chaudhary. He stated in the F.I.R. that the appellant was in judicial custody pursuant to an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in connection with a bail application of the year 2018 before ACMM-II Kanpur Nagar (Manoj alias Gittak v. State of U.P., Case Crime No. 0179 of 2017, under Sections 387 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar). It was stated by the complainant that the complainant in that case, Ajay Kumar Yadav (Advocate), called 100–150 advocates wearing black coats via a WhatsApp call. They all entered the courtroom and severely beat the accused, causing him injuries, which amounts to serious contempt of court. Hence, he prayed that the accused be medically examined, contempt of court proceedings be initiated against them, and a case be registered so that the lives of the accused persons could be saved. The viral messages on WhatsApp and Facebook were cited as sufficient proof. On this basis, the F.I.R. was registered.
Conversely, the present F.I.R. No. 314 of 2018 regarding the same incident dated 25.10.2018 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar on 26.10.2018 at 12:56 hours under Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 323 and 228 I.P.C. It was lodged by the complainant/informant, Pushpendra Singh, Court Moharrim. The said F.I.R. was also registered against Advocate Ajay Yadav and other advocates.
It is alleged in the contents of the said F.I.R. that the accused persons Manoj alias Gittak, Om Prakash alias Kariya, Shiv Prakash, and Birju were taken into judicial custody as per orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Case Crime No. 179 of 2017 under Sections 387 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. At around 15:00 hours, several advocates, along with the complainant in that case, Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav (Advocate), entered the courtroom and created a severe disturbance. The informant reported the matter to the learned Presiding Officer of the court, under whose orders the Police Outpost Incharge of the court premises entered the courtroom along with police force. Even thereafter, the crowd and the advocates could not be brought under control, and they assaulted the accused persons who were in judicial custody, inflicting serious injuries. This created a stampede in the courtroom, disrupting official court business. Significant efforts were made by the informant, Court Moharrim Sunil Chaubey, Pairokar Kushalpal, and the Incharge of Police Outpost Kotwali to save the accused, but Advocate Ajay Yadav and other advocates went away. Hence, it was prayed that an F.I.R. be registered and appropriate proceedings be initiated against them under orders of the court of ACMM-II Kanpur Nagar and the Incharge should register the F.I.R. immediately and commence legal proceedings. The document was signed on 25.10.2018 under the seal of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, by Pushpendra Singh, Court Moharrim.
The present second F.I.R. was lodged by the Court Moharrim of the competent court. The actions of the appellant, Ajay Kumar Yadav, and several other advocates are of an exceptional and serious nature, causing disturbance and obstruction to court proceedings, and must be viewed strictly.
It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Adarsh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Others, (2005) 53 ACC 292, concerning Sections 154, 161, and 162 Cr.P.C., that the registration of a second F.I.R. is not barred if the subsequent complaint reveals a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint.
Furthermore, a Three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 211, held that the decision of the two-Judge Bench in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001 AIR SC 2637, was doubted. It observed that prohibiting the registration of a case and investigation into a counter-version would lead to serious consequences. It was further noted that if the real offender takes the first opportunity to lodge a false report and gets it registered by the jurisdictional police, it would be a travesty of justice if the aggrieved victim could not bring forward his version of the incident.
Similarly, this Court held in Anurag Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Others, (2005) 52 ACC 563, regarding Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that where an F.I.R. is registered by the police against unknown persons, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. naming specific accused persons in respect of the same incident is not barred. The rejection of such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was held to be manifestly erroneous.
In the present case, there is completely different perspectives of the courtroom incident have emerged. The lodging of a second F.I.R. is not absolutely barred under law.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the court were jeopardized and the majesty of the law was challenged. Hence, the second F.I.R. was lodged from that distinct perspective.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.