Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 224 (PNJ)

Gulshan Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2002-02-19

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Gulshan Kumar, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 249 dated 21.8.2001 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. 2. The case put up by the petitioner is that he had hired car bearing registration No. PB-18D-3330 owned by Gurvinder Singh resident of Chander Nagar, Batala, respondent No. 2. On 26.2.2001 at 10.15 p.m., Gulshan Kumar, petitioner, who is a cloth merchant having his shop at Gandhi Chowk, Batala had gone to Munni Lal Chopra Memorial Hospital located on Mal Raid, Amritsar in order to see his relative, who was admitted in the said hospital. When he came out of the hospital after fifteen minutes, he found that car bearing No. PB-18D-3330 had been stolen. He made a search but could not find any trace of the car. Thereafter, he lodged the report bearing No. 39 dated 27.2.2001 with Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar on the basis of which case under Sections 379 I.P.C. was registered. In this report he had not mentioned that he had hired the car. Rather, he stated that his car had been stolen. 3. During the investigation of the case, Gurvinder Singh, respondent No. 2, lodged report bearing FIR No. 249 dated 21.8.2001 under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C with Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. It was stated therein that in the month of March 2000, he had purchased car bearing registration No. PB- 18D-3330, model 1998, Chassis No. 1267673, Engine No. 1745260 from Jatinder Mohan resident of Batala. On 26.2.2001, Gulshan Kumar, who was known to him came to his residence and made a request to him that he had to go to Munni Lal Chopra Memoria Hospital, Amritsar in order to see his relative and demanded the car for the said purpose. He took pity on him and gave the car to him in the presence of Harbhajan Singh. After expiry of three days, Gulshan Kumar came to him and informed that the car which he had taken to Amritsar had been stolen and assured him that he would either purchase a new car for him or pay him the amount in lieu thereof. Gurvinder Singh did not feel assured on this account and for that reason he made enquiries from Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. Gurvinder Singh did not feel assured on this account and for that reason he made enquiries from Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. He was astonished to know that in the report lodged, Gulshan Kumar and claimed himself to be the owner of the car in question. Thereafter, he contacted Gulshan Kumar who put him off on one pretext or the other. Failing to get any satisfactory reply from him, the present FIR was got registered. Under these circumstances quashing of FIR No. 249 dated 21.8.2001 registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar has been sought primarily on the ground that the Police was competent to investigate the matter under the first FIR registered at the behest of the petitioner as it related to the car in question which was alleged to have been stolen. 4. I have learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 5. It has been strenuously urged by the counsel for the petitioner that information had been given under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) to Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar by the petitioner in respect of theft of car No. PB-18D-3330 on the bassi whereof FIR No. 81 dated 27.2.2001 was registered. Consequently, the action of the Police in registering subsequent FIR No. 249 dated 21.8.2001 at the behest of respondent No. 2 with Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar relating to the offence of misappropriation and cheating under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C against the petitioner was illegal and impermissible under the law and thus the second FIR deserves to be quashed. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, JT 2001(5) SC 440 : 2001(3) RCR(Crl.) 436 wherein it was observed in paras 20 and 21 of the judgment as under :- "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. 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 the 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." 6. This question has again come up in Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi, 2002(1) RCR(Crl.) 86, wherein the action of the Police to register second FIR was challenged. Dealing with the submissions made it was observed in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment as under :- "11. This question has again come up in Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi, 2002(1) RCR(Crl.) 86, wherein the action of the Police to register second FIR was challenged. Dealing with the submissions made it was observed in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment as under :- "11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceeding initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted by the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceeding merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it. 12. Even otherwise the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under sub-section (21) of Section 173 on a previous occasion. This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code." 7. In view of the observations made in the above mentioned cases, it cannot be disputed that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same subject matter. It was clearly laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others (supra) that after filing the final report there can be further investigation and forwarding of further report. The Code specifically provides further investigation after forwarding of report under sub-section (2) of the Section 173 of the Code and forwarding of further report or reports to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(8) of the Code. The Code specifically provides further investigation after forwarding of report under sub-section (2) of the Section 173 of the Code and forwarding of further report or reports to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(8) of the Code. It follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs - the first and the second - is in substance the same, registering a second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 of the Code will be irregular and the court cannot take cognizance of the same. 8. In Kari Choudhary v. Most. Sita Devi (supra), the case was initially registered bearing FIR No. 135 which ended in a final report and thereafter another FIR No. 208 of 1998 was registered. What should be the approach of the Court in such a situation. Answer to this question was provided in the judgment and it is for that reason it has been specifically stated that the report submitted by the Court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the Court regarding the new discovery made by the Police during the investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceedings merely on the ground that final report had been submitted in FIR No. 135 would be too technical because the ultimate object of the investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged, have been committed and, if so, by whom. The underlined object of the above observations appears to be that unnecessary delay should not result in the trial of the criminal cases. The criminal justice system is concerned to advance the cause of justice. That being so, the same course can be adopted in the present case as well. 9. In the present case, the controversy has to be settled on the basis of facts as these are today. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that after the investigation of the case report under Section 173 of the Code has been filed. Therefore, the Investigating Officer can take notice of the recourse to be adopted as stated above in the FIR in question. It is too early to make a grievance by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 249, as the case is at the initial stage of investigation. Therefore, the Investigating Officer can take notice of the recourse to be adopted as stated above in the FIR in question. It is too early to make a grievance by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 249, as the case is at the initial stage of investigation. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the petition and the same is consequently dismissed.