Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1160 (PAT)

Indrajeet Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-18

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the F.I.R. Khagaria (Chitragupta Nagar) P.S. Case Nos. 352 of 2006 registered under section 409 I.P.C. on the basis of fardbeyan lodged by Deputy Collector. Nazarat, Khagaria. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. 3. It appears from the record that this petitioner was posted at Khagaria Collectorate as Nazir from 2002 to 2005, Later on the petitioner was transferred from khagaria Nazarat to Block Office. It was found that during that period i.e. from 23.3.2005 (sic-2003) to 3.3.2005, this petitioner had mis-appropriated government money and also committing omission and commission in maintenance of records etc. of the Nazarat. Accordingly, on 25.6.2005 the then Deputy Collector. Nazarat, Khagaria lodged a fardbeyan before Chitragupta Nagar police station upon which the police registered case against this petitioner bearing Case No. 326 of 2005. The police registered case and began to investigate the same, However, after more than one year again the then Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Khagaria lodged a second F.I.R. before Chitragupta Nagar police station for mis-appropriation of government money from the period 9.4.2004 to 3.3.2005 upon which the police registered a second F.I.R. bearing No. 352 of 2006. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the police cases arise out of the same occurrence. The first F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2005 and the present F.I.R. in question was lodged after more than one year for almost the same offence and occurrence. Therefore, the second F.I.R. is not maintainable in the eve of law. It can only be treated as the statement falling under sec. 161/162 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, no investigation can be made on the basis of subsequent information. In support of it, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (6) S.C.C. 181 (T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & others) and 2007(1) PLJR 590 . 5. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused both the F.I.R. as also decision cited above. It appears that the first F.I.R. which was lodged on 25.6.2005 bears almost same allegation with regard to mis-appropriation of government money and committing omission and commission in discharge of the official duty from the period 23.3.2003 to 3.3.2005 while the petitioner was posted as Nazir of Khagaria Collectorate. Perused both the F.I.R. as also decision cited above. It appears that the first F.I.R. which was lodged on 25.6.2005 bears almost same allegation with regard to mis-appropriation of government money and committing omission and commission in discharge of the official duty from the period 23.3.2003 to 3.3.2005 while the petitioner was posted as Nazir of Khagaria Collectorate. The police registered the case bearing No. 326 of 2005. The second F.I.R. which is Annexure-1 would also go to show that the then Deputy Collector. Nazarat, Khagaria lodged another F.I.R. against the petitioner for almost same allegation with different amounts for mis-appropriation of government money and omission and commission in discharge of the official duty from the period 9.4.2004 to 3.3.2005. The period mentioned in the F.I.R. is apparently covered under the period mentioned in first F.I.R. 6. It is needless to say that the apex court as well as this Hon ble High Court in several decisions have held that the second F.I.R. is not maintainable in the eye of law for the same offence and it can only be treated as a subsequent material and statements under sections 161/162 of the Cr.P.C. It has further, been held that no separate investigation can be made on the basis of subsequent fardbeyan lodged for the same occurrence. It is barred under the law. 7. From the above discussions, it is quite dear that the Annexure-1 is second F.I.R. in the eye of law. Therefore, the police has no jurisdiction to register a separate case on the basis of second F.I.R. and proceed with the investigation, it is legally barred. 8. Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed. However the materials collected by the police in course of investigation of the second F.I.R. can be clubbed with the first F.I.R. upon which the investigation is still going on.