Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 11 (MP)

Lakhan Giri v. State of M. P.

2011-01-04

INDRANI DATTA

body2011
ORDER Indrani Datta, J. 1. Matter is finally heard at motion stage. Invoking the inherent powers of this Court enshrined under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioners have filed this petition either for quashing the FIR concerning Crime No. 62/2009 registered at police station Chirula, District Datia against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act or for quashing the FIR concerning Crime No. 63/2009 registered at same police station against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act as well as entire subsequent criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 76/10 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Datia or entire subsequent criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 16/10 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity), Datia. 2. Facts in nutshell giving rise to this petition are that complainant Suresh Ahirwar lodged a report on 29/12/2009 at police station Chirula District Datia against the Petitioners that in the evening at about 4:45 he was returning from Datia after submitting forms of his mother and Bhabhi Manwati, concerning membership of Janpad. He was on the first motorcycle along with his brother Chandra Prakash and Dinesh Kumar. Guard of S.A.F. Anil Yadav, Ram Narayan Yadav and his bhabhi Manwati were on the second motorcycle. One Prem Narayan, Secretary was also coming behind by means of his motorcycle accompanied with S.A.F. Guard Yashbeer Singh. As soon as they reached at Kalapuram Dagrai Road, Petitioners restrained them, who were armed with 315 bore gun, 12 bore gun and they hurled abuses in respect of his caste and threatened that he would not be spared alive. Thereafter, they started firing towards them. On the report of the complainant, FIR concerning Crime No. 62/2009 is lodged against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. Thereafter, they started firing towards them. On the report of the complainant, FIR concerning Crime No. 62/2009 is lodged against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. Thereafter, another FIR concerning the same incident, was lodged by complainant Yashbeer Singh against the Petitioners and Crime No. 63/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act is registered against the Petitioners, giving rise to this petition either for quashing the first FIR concerning Crime No. 62/2009 or for quashing the second FIR concerning Crime No. 63/2009 as well as entire subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court. 3. It is contended by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that FIRs in question have been got registered by two complainants separately arising out of common incident. Even date and time of the incident is same, witnesses are common in both cases. In both the FIRs, common story has been narrated. The first FIR concerning Crime No. 62/2009 has been lodged by complainant Suresh Ahirwar while the second FIR concerning Crime No. 63/2009 has been lodged by complainant Jashbeer Singh, who is security guard of first complainant Suresh Ahirwar. Due to registration of two FIRs, two separate charge sheets have been filed and the Petitioners are facing two different trials arising out of one incident. Petitioners cannot be punished for the same offence twice. It is also contended by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that prima facie case under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act is not made out against the Petitioners. Hence, either the first FIR concerning Crime No. 62/2009 and entire subsequent criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 76/10 pending before the Court of Special Judge (Atrocities), Datia or the second FIR concerning Crime No. 63/2009 and entire subsequent criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 16/10 pending before the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity), Datia is to be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2001 Cri.L.J. 3329, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there can be no second FIR in respect of same cognizable offence, same incident or occurrence. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2001 Cri.L.J. 3329, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there can be no second FIR in respect of same cognizable offence, same incident or occurrence. 5. Placing reliance on the above citation, it is urged by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that second FIR concerning Crime No. 63/2009 and entire sub-sequent criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 16/10 pending before the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity) Datia, are to be quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent- State opposed the prayer of the Petitioners and prayed for dismissal of this petition. 7. Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. It is apparent that two FIRs have been got registered arising out of one common incident by two different complainants. Prosecution story and place of occurrence is same. Witnesses are common in both cases. 9. Considering the legal aspect and the facts and circumstances of the case, the second FIR concerning Crime No. 63/2009 and entire subsequent criminal proceeding concerning Special Case No. 16/10, pending before the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity), Datia are hereby quashed. However, it is directed to learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Datia where Special Case No. 76/10 is pending concerning Crime No. 62/2009, that he/she shall consider the material on record in order to make out that whether prima facie the offence under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 11/13 of M.P. D.V.P.K. Act is made out against the Petitioners. If the offence is made out against the Petitioners, then proceed in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to both the Courts concerned for necessary information and compliance.