AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is named accused in Salimpur P.S. Case No.
38 of 2015 as well as in Salimpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2015 for an
occurrence dated 08.03.2015 committed at the same place. In other
words, according to the petitioner both the FIRs aforesaid are for the
same occurrence. Hence, subsequent FIR bearing Salimpur P.S. Case
No. 47 of 2015 be quashed as it is well settled that the petitioner or any
accused cannot be put to double jeopardy.
For consideration of the aforesaid point and prayer, it would
be necessary to go through the two FIRs. The first FIR i.e. Salimpur P.S.
Case No. 38 of 2015 was lodged on 08.03.2015 itself for the occurrence
dated 08.03.2015 committed in the village Kala Diyara, Police Station
Salimpur, district Patna on the written report of Devendra Rai, Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police, Salimpur Police Station. According to FIR,
when the police was on patrolling duty, the local people informed that
two groups one led by Krishna Singh and another led by Kapildeo Singh
(informant of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2015) have attacked,
variously armed against each other, resulted in injuries to several persons
of both side. Further allegation is that the members of the two groups
(petitioner was member of the group of Krishna Singh) fired against each
other. When the police reached there one of the injured Kapildeo Singh
was found who was taken to hospital (Public Health Centre,
Bakhtiyarpur). The FIR further discloses that both sides are quarrelsome
people and in the past also, the referred criminal cases were lodged
against each other. A copy of the aforesaid FIR is Annexure-1.
The second FIR was lodged on the fardbeyan of Kapildeo
Singh i.e. member of one of the groups disclosed in Salimpur P.S. Case
No. 38 of 2015. The fardbeyan was recorded by the Sub-Inspector, S.
Pandey of Pirbahore Police Station at Patna Medical College & Hospital
on 22.03.2015. Hence, by necessary implication, the injured was referred
from Primary Health Centre, Bakhtiyarpur to Patna Medical College &
Hospital for better treatment. In this FIR Kapildeo Singh alleged that
named persons including the petitioner variously armed, came to his
house and committed assault causing injury at different parts of the body
as well as commission of theft etc. Old dispute and enmity is stated as
reason for the occurrence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the
FIRs were in respect of the same occurrence and the petitioner is named
as accused in both the FIRs, hence, fundamental right to protection
against double jeopardy is attracted. Therefore, subsequent FIRs is fit to
be quashed against the petitioner.
Though respondent no. 6 appeared in this case but did not
file any counter affidavit nor appeared at the time of hearing. However,
the State-respondents have filed their separate counter affidavit stating
therein that after investigation, the allegations in Salimpur P.S. Case No.
38 of 2015 as well as in Salimpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2015 have been
found true against the named accused persons. However, the Senior
Police Officers have directed the Investigation Officer to file appropriate
petition before the learned Magistrate for amalgamation of both the cases
and for joint trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
case of Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr . reported
in (2013) 6 SCC 384 in support of his submission that there cannot be
more than one FIR for the same occurrence.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court, while holding that two FIRs
of the same occurrence are not permissible, observed in paragraph 15 of
the judgment as follows:-
"15. It has to be examined on the merits of each case whether a subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR about the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will not be appropriate for the court to lay down one straitjacket formula uniformly applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of law and facts depending upon the merits of a given case."
Keeping the aforesaid proposition in mind, what I find in
the present case is that in the first FIR i.e. Salimpur P.S. Case No. 38 of
2015, the informant is not an eye-witness of the occurrence nor he
disclosed the name of the person who had informed to the police
regarding the occurrence, allegedly, committed by the named two
groups. However, the FIR clearly reveals that informant of Salimpur P.S.
Case No. 47 of 2015 was an injured of the occurrence. The FIR of
Salimpur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2015 clearly discloses the name of the
assailant of the informant. Therefore, the same principle is not applicable
in the facts and circumstances of this case that the subsequent FIR is fit
to be quashed. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the
subsequent FIR is refused.
Since charge sheet has been submitted in both the cases
following directions are issued to the trial court.
(i) Trial of both the cases shall simultaneously go on before
one court.
(ii) The accused persons charge sheeted in Salimpur P.S. Case
No. 47 of 2015 shall face trial in Salimpur P.S. Case No. 47
of 2015 only and not in Salimpur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2015
even though they have been charge sheeted in that case.
(iii) Other accused of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2015 shall
be treated as accused of the counter case and shall face trial,
according to law in Salimpur P.S. Case No. 38 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
cases of Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Ors . reported in (2004) 13
SCC 292, Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration ) reported
in (1979) 2 SCC 322, Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors . reported
in (2010) 12 SCC 254 and Chirra Shivraj vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in (2010) 14 SCC 444.
The aforesaid case laws are not applicable in the present
facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of with
the above direction.