Chandan Kumar And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the same informant (wife of the petitioner) earlier lodged Mahila Police Station (for brevity PS) Case No 125 of 2018. It is submitted that in respect of the same offence, a second first information report (for brevity, FIR) bearing Mahila PS Case No 85 of 2019 has been lodged. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Babubhai -Versus- State of Gujarat & Others, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254, he submits that Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity, Cr P C), there should be only one FIR in respect of one transaction. There can be no second FIR in respect of the same transaction and at best, subsequent information should be treated as one under Section 161 of Cr P C. The proposition of law is axiomatic and cannot be disputed.

The FIR arising out of Mahila PS Case No 85 of 2019, however, from a bare perusal of the same, seems to have been lodged due to intimidation being meted out to the informant when she was doing pairvi in the case arising out of the earlier case, namely, Mahila PS Case No 125 of 2018. Merely, for the fact that the informant has referred to the background, i e, the earlier case in the second FIR, does not make the instant case a second FIR in respect of the same transaction. The second FIR alleges coercion, duress and intimidation against the petitioners to bring about a settlement in the earlier criminal proceedings, which constitutes a fresh allegation.

In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution, arising out of the second case, is in respect of the same/earlier transaction. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

No case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr P C. This application is dismissed.