Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1325 (RAJ)

Badrigiri v. State of Rajasthan

2004-09-14

N.N.MATHUR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 CrPC, petitioners have challenged the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh refusing to interfere with the order dated 27.5.2003 passed by the learned CJM, Chittorgarh taking cognizance against s the petitioners Badrigiri, Ghanshyam and Shankerpuri for the offence u/s. 504 IPC and as against petitioner Indra Devi for the offence u/s. 427 IPC. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on a complaint filed by Krishna Chandra, FIR No. 601/2001 was registered against the petitioners and others for the offence u/Sections 504. 427, 341, 323/34 IPC . to infect, prior to the said FIR, another FIR was lodged being FIR No. 600 dated 12.11.2001 by the petitioners herein against Smt. Munna Devi, Miss Lakki, Sanjay and Vipin. The police after investigation, forwarded the negative report in FIR case No. 601/2001. The Final Report was accepted by the order of the learned CJM dated 31.7.2002. After the Final Report was accepted in FIR Case No. 601/2001, the same complainant viz; Krishna Chandra filed another complaint on 6.8.2002 against petitioners and others for the same offences i.e. sections 454, 448, 341, 504/34 IPC. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the witnesses u/ss. 200 and 202 CrPC. Learned Magistrate by order dated 6.1.2003 has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence u/ss. 427, 504 and 336 IPC. A revision petition was preferred against the said order, which was allowed by the revisional Court by order dated 21.4.2003 and the matter was remanded back to the court of learned CJM. By order dated 27.5.2003, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against Smt. Indra Devi for the offence u/s. 427 IPC and as against other petitioners for the offence under Section 504 IPC. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that after acceptance of the Final Report by the learned CJM by order dated 31.7.2002, second complaint on same facts could not have been entertained. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2571 . 4. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that after acceptance of the Final Report by the learned CJM by order dated 31.7.2002, second complaint on same facts could not have been entertained. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2571 . 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2 that even after acceptance of the Final Report in earlier case, a magistrate is competent to take cognizance on the second FIR filed on same facts. Reliance is placed on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Chandan Mal Jain v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998 Cr LR (Raj) 474 . The said decision is based on a decision of i the Apex Court in Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sinha, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 510 . The Apex Court in Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 59 expressed that the controversy involved, must be decided by a larger Bench. After the said order dated 25.1.2001. the Apex Court in T.T. Antony's case (supra) decided on 12.7.2001. has taken the view that there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequently information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offence. 5. In the facts of the case, I consider it appropriate to follow the decision of the Apex Court in TT Antony's case (supra). In the instant case, the Final Report submitted by the police was accepted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 31.7.2002. The complainant instead of challenging the said order, filed a second complaint on 6.8.2002 on same facts. i am of the view that no cognizance can be taken on the basis of second FIR on same facts. 6. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The order of the revisional Court dated 4.9.2003 and the order of the learned CJM dated 27.5.2003 taking cognizance against the petitioners as mentioned above, is quashed and set aside.Petition Allowed - Order of Trial and Revisional Courts Set Aside. *******