Saddam & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

Hon'Ble Madan Pal Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 14th July, 2025 submitted in Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 under Sections 191 (1), 191 (2), 190, 109, 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 351 (3) and 3 (5) B.N.S. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station-Falawada, District-Meerut as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 17th July, 2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Meerut in the aforementioned case.

The brief facts are that the instant first information report has been lodged by the Sub-Inspector Ratnesh Dubey in the capacity of Assistant Chowki In-chartge Mahalaka, Police Station-Falawada, District Meerut on 17th May, 2025 at 2300 hrs., against 18 named and 5-6 unknown accused persons including the applicants by name, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 under Sections 191 (1), 191 (2), 190, 109, 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 351 (3) B.N.S. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station-Falawada, District-Meerut. In the said first information report it has been alleged that on the relevant date i.e. 17th May, 2025 at around 06:30 P.M., while the informant along with Constable Pushendra were on routine patrolling duty in Village Mahalaka, Police Station- Falawda, District Meerut, a violent clash broke out between two armed factions. The First Party compromising Aslam, Shaukeen, Arshalan, Shahlam, Bhura @ Arshad, Usman, Khalik, Mannan, and Zubair, along with 5–6 unidentified persons and the Second Party comprising Arif, Aas Md. @ Aashu, Rashid, Shahid, Salman, Qayyoom @ Bhura, Shahnawaz, Salman, and Bilal, along with 5–6 unidentified persons, were engaged in rioting, stone-pelting, and brandishing firearms. It is alleged that both groups exchanged gunfire with intent to kill each other, creating widespread terror and chaos among the general public in the locality. Upon noticing the arrival of the police, both factions allegedly obstructed public servants in the discharge of their official duties and opened direct fire at the police personnel with intent to kill. While the police officers narrowly escaped, five civilian bystanders, namely, Rahul Kumar, Ankul, Jeemal, Waris, and Mamata, sustained gunshot injuries during the indiscriminate firing. The police force managed to control the rioting crowd upon the arrival of additional reinforcements, dispatched the injured to the hospital, and subsequently registered the present case under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 190, 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the investigation proceeded and upon completion of the same, the impugned charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the accused persons including the applicants under Sections 191 (1), 191 (2), 190, 109, 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 351 (3) and 3 (5) B.N.S. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. On submission of the same, the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance thereon vide order impugned dated 17th July, 2025 and issued process of summons. Hence, the present criminal application has been filed.

It is the case of the applicants that for the alleged incident dated 17th May, 2025 at 1730 hrs, the cousin brother of the applicants, namely, Mohd. Shoib Akhtar has lodged fist information report against 8 named accused persons which has been registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2025 under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 110, 352, 351 (2), 351 (3) B.N.S. with the allegation that since his brother, namely, Ashu had made complaint against the Village Pradhan, namely, Aslam before the Senior Superintendent of Police because Aslam used to involve in gambling and betting due to which he harbored enmity towards them. It is further alleged that on the said date and time, Aslam and other accused persons armed with country-made pistol and other deadly weapon open burst firing upon both the applicants and Ashu, consequently, the applicants along with Salman sustained serious injuries.

Further it is the case of the applicants that as a counter blast to the aforesaid criminal case i.e. Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, one of the accused of Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, namely, Shaukeen, lodged another first information report on 17th May, 2025 at 2230 hours showing the same incident i.e. 17th May, 2025 at 1730 hours, against the six named accused persons, who are members of the side of applicants, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 114 of 2025 under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 333, 352, 115 (2), 131, 109, 308 (5), 351 (2) and 351 (3) at the same Police Station i.e. Falawada, District Meerut. In the said first information report it has been alleged that on 17th May, 2025 at 1730 hours, Arif, Aash Mohammad @ Ashu, Rashid, Shahid, Salman and Sahnawaj assaulted the informant Shaukeen and other persons. It is further alleged that Arif open fire upon Shaukeen (informant of the said case) but he saved himself but Shahalam and some other persons sustained injuries.

Then it is the case of the applicants that just to keep the accused persons of case crime no. 113 of 2025 on equal footing of the injured the instant case has been lodged by the police with the collusion of accused persons of case crime no. 113 of 2025 because one of the accused is Gram Pradhan and engaged in illegal activities and has influential relation with the police and thus the instant F.I.R. is nothing but the malicious prosecution of the applicants. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that no police personnel sustained any injuries which again belies the prosecution story. The applicant no.1 is not named in F.I.R. lodged as case crime no. 114 of 2025 but the police arrested him with the applicant no. 2 when they appeared before the primary health center for their medical examination and thereafter he was challaned in the instant case without revealing any material after the registration of instant F.I.R. and the arrest of the applicant and thus both the applicants have been maliciously dragged into the instant case but the real fact is that they are the victim. From the spot it has been alleged that two dead cartridge of 315 bore and two dead cartridge of 12 bore were recovered related with the case crime no. 113 of 2025, case crime no. 114 of 2025 and case crime no. 115 of 2025 which clearly again establish that this case is nothing but the concoction of police itself. During the course of investigation it has been alleged that Ankul, Rahul Kumar and Warish were medically examined. However, the real fact is that the applicants as well as the other persons sustained injuries due to the burst firing of the accused persons of case crime no. 113 of 2025 as the applicants themselves sustained injuries. From the perusal of the entire material collected by the investigating officer it is very much clear that no any incriminating material was recovered from the applicants either in the form of arms and cartridge. The applicants are the victim of case crime no. 113 of 2025 and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case with the malicious object to bow-down for the compromise of case crime no. 113 of 2025.

The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that for the same offence multiple first information reports cannot be registered against the same accused. Since two first information reports were already lodged, which have been registered as case crime no. 113 of 2025 and case crime no. 114 of 2025. As such, the third first information report lodged by the Police which has been registered as Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 is per se illegal as the same hits Article 20 & 22 of the constitution of India.

To bolster the aforesaid contention that the third first information report could not have been entertained concerned Magistrate while taking cognizance upon the charge-sheet submitted pusruant to the aforesaid case, the learned counsel for the applicant has commended this Court to the following decisions of the Apex Court:

Mr. Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, submits that in view of the settled law as laid down in various judgments by the Apex Court, the impugned charge-sheet dated 14th July, 2025 submitted pursuant to the third first information report lodged by the Police registered as Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 under Sections 191 (1), 191 (2), 190, 109, 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 351 (3) and 3 (5) B.N.S. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station-Falawada, District-Meerut against the applicants along with other accused persons for the same offence, cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. for the State, per contra, has vehementally opposed the submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant, by submitting that there is no absolute prohibition in law for lodging of third first information report, and, more so, when allegations are made from different spectrum or, for that matter, when different versions are putforth by different persons and there are different accused persons. In support of their plea, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surender Kaushik & Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 148.

This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the the case, the submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as gone through the entire materials brought on record.

Before coming to the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to refer Chapter XII of the Code, which deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. As provided under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the "Code/Cr.P.C."), every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, either given orally or in writing is required to be entered in a book, to be kept by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. The said FIR, as mandated by law, should pertain to a cognizable case. Section 2(c) of the Code defines "cognizable offence" which also deals with cognizable cases.

For ready reference, Sections 2 (c), 154 and 156 (3) Cr.P.C. [now Sections 2 (1) (g), 173 and 175 (3) B.N.S.S.], which are relevant for deciding the present application, read as follows:-

If the primary requirement is satisfied, an FIR is to be registered and the criminal law is set in motion and the officer-in-charge of the police station takes up the investigation. The question that has emerged for consideration in this case is whether after registration of the FIR and commencement of the investigation, a second FIR relating to the same incident on the basis of a direction issued by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code can be registered.

For deciding the present criminal application it is necessary for this Court to put-forth all the facts of the instant case.

(i). It is admitted case of the applicants that their cousin brother, namely, Mohd. Shoib Akhtar for the alleged incident dated 17th May, 2025 at 1730 hrs, has lodged fist information report against 8 named accused persons, registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2025 under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 110, 352, 351 (2), 351 (3) B.N.S. The brief allegations made in the said first information report are that since the applicants' brother, Ashu, had previously lodged a formal complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, against the present Village Pradhan, Aslam son of Jahoor, regarding his involvement in running illegal gambling (jua/satta) activities, Aslam side harbored grudge from the side of applicants and in connection with the same, on 17.05.2025 at approximately 05:40 PM, while the informant was at home, he heard a commotion near Shahzad Kirana Store and rushed to the spot. He observed that accused Aslam along with Shaukin, Bhoora @ Arshad (sons of Jahoor Qureshi), Usman son of Mehraj, Khalid and Mannan (sons of Ibrahim), Arslan son of Islam, and Zubair son of Harun, all armed with deadly firearms and weapons, had intercepted the informant's cousin brothers, namely, Bilal, Saddam, and Salman, along with Ashu. Harbouring a grudge over the past complaint, the accused persons hurled filthy abuses, issued death threats, and with the common intention to commit murder, opened indiscriminate fire upon the victims. As a result of the gunshot assault, Bilal sustained critical bullet injuries to his head and leg; Saddam suffered gunshot wounds to his head, abdomen, and body; and Salman received a bullet injury to his chest, causing him to collapse unconscious on the spot. Upon the alarm raised by the informant and independent witnesses (Shahnawaz and Yaseen), the accused fled the scene while issuing threats of dire consequences and reminding the informant that they had previously murdered his father, Gulzar. The informant, having witnessed the entire occurrence firsthand, subsequently reported the matter to the police, leading to the registration of the said first information report.

(ii). It is also admitted by the applicants that showing the same incident i.e. 17th May, 2025 at 1730 hrs., as a counter blast to the aforesaid criminal case i.e. Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, one Shaukeen, who is one of the accused of Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, lodged another first information report on 17th May, 2025 at 2230 hours, against the six named accused persons, who are members of the side of applicants, registered as Case Crime No. 114 of 2025 under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 333, 352, 115 (2), 131, 109, 308 (5), 351 (2) and 351 (3) at the same Police Station i.e. Falawada, District Meerut. The brierf allegations made in this second first information report are that the brother of the informant, named Aslam, is the sitting Village Pradhan of Village Mahalka. One Arif, son of Ishtiyaq, a history-sheeter attached to Police Station Daurala, had been continuously demanding extortion money from the informant's brother, which was resisted by the latter. On May 17, 2025, at about 05:30 PM, the named accused persons, namely Arif, Aas Mohammad alias Aasu, Wajid, Shahid, Salman, and Shahnawaz, along with others, forcibly entered the house of the informant armed with lathis, sharp-edged weapons, and country-made firearms. Upon gaining entry, the accused persons subjected the occupants to verbal abuse and launched a violent assault upon anyone present. During the course of the incident, the informant, his brother Shah Alam, and several other persons sustained severe injuries resulting from the use of sharp-edged weapons and stone-pelting, inflicted with the alleged intention to commit murder. It is specifically alleged that the accused Arif discharged a firearm at the informant, but the informant narrowly escaped unhurt. Following the commotion, local residents assembled at the spot, whereupon the accused fled the scene while extending threats to life. It is alleged that while retreating, the accused Arif brandished a firearm and threatened that if extortion money to the tune of Rupees Two Lakhs was not paid, the informant's brother would be prevented from continuing as the Village Pradhan. In the process of escaping amidst the gathering crowd, some of the fleeing assailants fell and sustained minor injuries.

From the perusal of the allegations made in the aforesaid three first information reports, this Court finds that the first, first information report (case crime no. 113 of 2025) has been lodged on the allegation that Aslam, an opponent of the applicants' side and a village Pradhan, was involved in gambling and betting; after the applicants' brother, Ashu, complained about this to the Senior Superintendent of Police, he harbored animosity toward the applicants, consequently, on the day of the incident, Aslam and the other accused persons, who were armed with country-made pistols and other deadly weapons came and open fire on the applicants' side due to which the applicants and Salman sustained serious injuries; the second first information report (case crime no. 114 of 2025) lodged by the side of Village Pradhan Aslam against applicants' side on the allegation that Arif, a man with a criminal history belonging to the opposing side, used to demand extortion money from Aslam, who is the informant's brother and village Pradhan. When Aslam refused to pay such extortion money, members of the opposing group barged into the informant's house armed with lathis (wooden clubs), sharp-edged weapons, and country-made pistols. They assaulted members of the informant's side while hurling verbal abuse, causing severe injuries to several of them; subsequently, when locals arrived at the scene, the accused fled while issuing death threats. Whereas the allegations made in the third first information lodged by the Police are that on the day of the incident, while the local informer and a Constable Pushpendra were on routine patrol duty in Mahalka village, a violent clash broke out between two armed groups. The first group consisted of eight named individuals and 5–6 unidentified persons, while the second group comprised nine named individuals and 5–6 unidentified persons; all of them were engaged in rioting, stone-pelting, and brandishing weapons, both factions opened fire with the intent to kill each other, causing widespread panic and chaos among the local residents, upon the arrival of the police, both groups allegedly obstructed government officials from performing their duties and fired directly at the police personnel with the intent to kill. The police officers narrowly escaped, but five civilians, namely, Rahul Kumar, Ankul, Jimal, Waris, and Mamta, namely sustained gunshot injuries during the indiscriminate firing. Upon the arrival of reinforcements, the police force brought the rioting mob under control, and the injured were sent to the hospital.

On deeper scrutiny of the aforesaid three first information reports, this Court is of the firm opinion that the allegations/versions, complainant and the motive are entirely different in the aforesaid three first information reports. The injured persons belong to applicants side, their opponent side and the general public, they are also not related to each other. It is no doubt true that the date of incident is same but the timing of the incident mentioned in the third first information report lodged by the Police is also different from the two first information reports. The first two first information reports i.e. case crime nos. 113 of 2025 and 114 of 205 are cross cases to each other.

This Court has also gone through the facts recorded in the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of T.T. Antony and State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (Supras) which have heavily relied upon the learned counsel for the applicants. This Court can never imagine to over look any laws laid down by the Apex Court. However, after perusal of the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that the facts of the aforesaid two cases are clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case.

It is kept in the mind of this Court that if, for the sake of argument, we accept the submission of the applicant's counsel and quash the current First Information Report, which, according to them, is the third FIR regarding the same incident, and if, at a later stage, the accused and the injured parties in the two cases (Crime Nos. 113 of 2025 and 114 of 2025) reach a compromise and have those cases closed, then what becomes of the criminal liability of the individuals accused in the present case (Crime No. 115 of 2025)? Furthermore, what justice would be served regarding the damage caused to police vehicles and the injuries sustained by four members of the public? Would all of that simply be wiped away as well?

In the case of Surender Kaushik (Supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Government Advocates for the State, the Apex Court while considering the other judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322; T.T. Antony (Supra), Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash reported in (2004) 13 SCC 292; Kari Chaudhary Vs. Sita Devi reported in (2002) 1 SCC 714; and Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254; has observed that it is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the registration of a second First Information Report (FIR) in respect of the exact same incident or cause of action is impermissible in law. However, the doctrine of "sameness" must be interpreted restrictively. It does not operate as an absolute bar against the registration of a counter-FIR or a distinct complaint raising a different factual version, even if related to connected events or the same underlying transaction. What the law prohibits is a subsequent complaint by the same complainant against the same accused seeking to improvise, amplify, or embellish upon the allegations already under investigation pursuant to the initial FIR.

The Apex Court further observed that where rival versions of an incident are brought forth, or where independent aggrieved persons raise distinct grievances involving different sets of accused, distinct factual spectra, or separate conspiracies, the bar against lodging a subsequent FIR does not apply. Quashing subsequent FIRs in such scenarios would unfairly deprive independent complainants of their statutory right to a thorough investigation and judicial redress.

On the basis of the aforesaid observations, the Apex Court has opined that applying these principles to cases involving multiple FIRs alleging distinct acts of forgery, fabrication of documents, or fraud by different sets of individuals, even within the broader context of the same society or institution, each complaint constitutes a distinct offense with a separate operational spectrum. Consequently, a subsequent FIR lodged by another aggrieved party raising a distinct grievance cannot be categorized as a "second FIR" on the same cause of action, and any prayer seeking its quashing on the ground of "sameness" is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

For ready reference, relevant paragraph nos. 24 and 25 in the case of Surender Kasuhik (Supra) is quoted herein-under:

In view of the aforesaid discussions and deliberations of the facts and law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kaushik (Supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present criminal case as in the opinion of this Court, the third first information report lodged by the Police giving rise to the instant criminal case is permissible and maintainable.

Consequently, the present criminal application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.