K. Thangaraj vs State and Malaiyalingam

G. Rajasuria, J.—This petition has been filed to quash the first information report in Cr. No. 20 of 2010 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai.

Concisely and precisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus:

(i) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would air the grievance of the Petitioner placing reliance on the typed set of papers and the averments in the Criminal Original Petition as under:

(a) At the instance of one Village Administrative Officer, a case in Cr. No. 13 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 420 I.P.C, was registered by the Y. Othakadai Police Station, generally to the effect that the three accused persons namely N.S. Ravindrapandian, N.S. Babu, D. Malaichamy along with one Thangaraj, were attempting to sell away the Government property measuring an extent of 2108 sq.ft in S. No. 134 and hence, he sought for legal action.

(b) Whereas at the instance of one Malaiyalingam, a second F.I.R in Cr. No. 20 of 2010 was registered by the District Crime Branch, Madurai, citing the same Thangaraj referred to above, as accused and also ten other persons as though they are attempting to sell away the property in S. No. 134 showing the defacto complainant''s Principal''s land also.

(c) There cannot be any second F.I.R relating to one and the same occurrence. Whatever be circumstances that might arise and whatever be the facts necessary, they might be included in the first F.I.R itself by way of additional facts as per Section 161 Cr.P.C and not by registering a separate F.I.R. Accordingly, he prays for quashing the F.I.R. in Cr. No. 20 of 2010 on the file of the first Respondent.

(d) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further place reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:

(i) T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others, . An excerpt from it, would run thus:

An information given under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 nickname 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 in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion u/s 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report u/s 173 CrPC. 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 CrPC. 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 - FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. 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 u/s 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR 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 CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence u/s 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR u/s 302 IPC 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 u/s 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.

The scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion u/s 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned u/s 173(2) CrPC. 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 CrPC.

From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 Code of Criminal Procedure only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR 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 FIR 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 CrPC.

(ii) Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 248.

(iii) Niranjan Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, .

(iv) Indrajeet Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2007(4) Crimes 330 (Pat.)

(v) A.R. Philip v. Thomas George reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 333.

(vi) Babubhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in CDJ 2010 SC 746.

(ii) The learned Counsel for the second Respondent would put forth and set forth his argument, the nitty-gritty of it, would run thus:

(a) The contention on the part of the Petitioner that the F.I.R in Cr. No. 20 of 2010 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Madurai, is a second F.I.R, is wrong and it cannot be treated as a second F.I.R to the first one referred to above. It is an independent F.I.R touching upon the land of the defacto complainant''s principal. The gist and kernel of the F.I.R in Cr. No. 20 of 2010 is that while attempting to sell the land in S. No. 134 illegally by the accused, they had also referred to the land belonging to the defacto complainant''s Principal as though it is covered under the said S. No. 134 and they are trying to sell that property. The gravamen as found enunciated in the second F.I.R is that it referred to the land of the Principal of Malaiyalingam and not at all the land in S. No. 134 actually.

(b) In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent would cite the following decisions:

(i) M. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, .

(ii) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors. in Appeal (Crl).411 of 2002 dated10.09.2004.

(iii) Mukeem Ullah, Maboob Alam, Asgar Ali and Bahalauddin Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kamlesh Patel, .

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first Respondent, who would submit that Y. Othakadai Police Station and the District Crime Branch, Madurai, are all coming under the control of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and that he has got supervisory powers and that relating to both the F.I. Rs, the investigation is pending.

A mere perusal of the decisions cited by both the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the second Respondent, would enable this Court to understand that the law is now well settled that simply because after the registration of an F.I.R, certain new facts relating to the one and the same incident come to the knowledge of anyone, there is no necessity to register a second F.I.R and the additional facts could be included in the case relating to the first F.I.R without registering a second F.I.R.

Now, the factual issue has got to be settled and that each side has argued at length in support of its own case.

Considering pro et contra, it is crystal clear that Malaiyalingam, the defacto complainant in Cr. No. 20 of 2010, is in no way laying claim over the land in S. No. 134 on behalf of his Principal. Whereas in the first F.I.R, the land to an extent of 2108 sq.ft in S. No. 134 alone is covered and the defacto complainant in that F.I.R, namely the Village Administrative Officer contended that the land belonging to the said land belongs to the Government as poramboke land. Whereas in the F.I.R in Cr. No. 20 of 2010 lodged by Malaiyalingam, the contention is that the Principal of Malaiyalingam was also sought to be sold by as many as eleven persons under the pretext of selling the land in S. No. 134 by showing a larger boundary including the land belonging to the Principal of Malaiyalingam, who is the defacto complainant in Cr. No. 20 of 2010.

The fact remains that the first F.I.R is pending with Y. Othakadai Police Station and the F.I.R, which is later in point of time, is pending with the District Crime Branch, Madurai. As such, in two different police stations, those F.I. Rs are pending.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would highlight that the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, is having jurisdiction over both the police stations.

Hence, it is for the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, to call for the records relating to those F.I. Rs and probe into the matter with the help of his Subordinate Police Officers as to whether the subject matter of the first F.I.R and the subject matter of the later F.I.R are one and the same. If he comes to the conclusion that the subject matter and the gravamen are one the same, the second F.I.R has to be closed and the investigation has to be proceeded with based on the first F.I.R by adding the additional facts also to it by way of statements u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure But, on the other hand, if the Superintendent of Police as stated supra, comes to the conclusion that the subject matter and the gravamen of the first F.I.R and the second F.I.R are different, then separately, they have to be proceeded with. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, shall complete this task within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.