Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 275 (GAU)

Payi Gyadi v. State of Arunchal Pradesh And Anr.

2013-04-30

P.K.SAIKIA

body2013
1. Heard Mr. Duyu Lazi, learned counsel for the miscellaneous applicant. Also heard Mr. Kholie Tado, learned P.P., appearing for the respondent State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. With the consent of the parties, I propose to dispose of this miscellaneous application at the order stage itself. 3. The facts, necessary for effective disposal of this matter, in a nut-shell, are that on the basis of First Information Report (FIR) dated 5.6.2011, Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 67/2012 under section 25(l)(a) of the Arms Act, 1951, was registered. In the course of investigation, one Sri Sanjiv Tana was arrested and detained in custody. Subsequently, he was released on bail. As the investigation of the aforesaid case proceeded more and more, it was found that the accused aforesaid committed some other offences as well which were not incorporated/included/ alleged in the First FIR for which the Investigation Officer filed the 2nd FIR on 13.6.2011. On the basis of 2nd FIR, the Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 70/2011 under sections 195/120B IPC, was registered. 4. In connection with the case, registered on the 2nd FIR, the accused was again arrested. However, he was subsequently released on bail. Being aggrieved by the case registered on the 2nd FIRs in respect of the same incident, the accused Sri Sanjiv Tana approached this court by way of filing Criminal Petition No. 06/2012 seeking quashing of the 2nd First Information Report (FIR). This court, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, vide order dated 10.4.2012, quashed the 2nd FIR with the following observations: - “4. I have perused the FIR dated 5th June, 2011, at Annexure I, which has been registered as NLG P.S. Case No. 67 of 2011 under section 25(l)(a)Arms Act, 1951, as well as second FIR dated 13th June, 2011, at Annexure 3, which was registered as NLG P.S. Case No. 70 of 2011 under section 195/120(b), IPC. 5. On bare perusal of both FIRs, I found subject-matter and facts are same. Therefore, I could not understand what compelled S.L.T. Habung to file the FIR one after another on the same subject-matter, which is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, it has become imperative for this court to interfere with the FIR dated 13th June, 2011, at Annexure 3 and to invoke the powers under section 482 Cr.PC. Therefore, I could not understand what compelled S.L.T. Habung to file the FIR one after another on the same subject-matter, which is against the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, it has become imperative for this court to interfere with the FIR dated 13th June, 2011, at Annexure 3 and to invoke the powers under section 482 Cr.PC. Accordingly, I hereby quashed the FIR dated 13.6.2011, which was registered as NLG P.S. Case No. 70 of 2011 under section 195/120(b), IPC. I have also noticed that said Mr. T. Habung, S.I. is the complainant, at the same time, he is the Investigating Officer.” 5. Since the 2nd FIR which gave rise to Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 70 of 2011 under sections 195/120(b), IPC, was quashed by this order dated 10.4.2012 passed in Crl. Petition No. 06/2012, the Investigating Officer is said to be in a dilemma as to whether he could take any action against the accused Sri Sanjiv Tana allegedly for his having committed offences under sections 195/120(b), IPC. Therefore, the present miscellaneous application has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a clarification regarding the dilemma, as stated above. 6. It is an well settled proposition of law that the First Information Report (FIR) is not the encyclopeadia of the entire case. It is rather a document which sets law in motion. It may or may not give full information about any unlawful action(s). All depend on the information which are available to the informant who lodges such FIR. But that does not prevent the Investigating Officer from taking note of more and more offences which surface during the course of investigation of such incident or from taking action against .more and more persons, not named in the FIR. It is, therefore, for the Investigating Officer to find out the detail of the incident during the course of investigation of a particular case and to take action accordingly. Thus, it is well within the right of the Investigating Officer to take such action/actions as he deems fit on the basis of investigation, conducted by him in accordance with law. 7. Coming back to our case, I have found that this court, by its order dated 10.4.2012, quashed the 2nd FIR. Since the contents of 1st FIR and 2nd FIR basically being same. 7. Coming back to our case, I have found that this court, by its order dated 10.4.2012, quashed the 2nd FIR. Since the contents of 1st FIR and 2nd FIR basically being same. But it did not debar the I.O. from taking appropriate action/actions against any person/persons, not named in the FIR if the investigation, conducted on the basis of 1st FIR justifies such action/actions. 8. In that view of the matter, if the Investigating Officer, while conducting the investigation on the case, initiated on the basis of 1st FIR, finds that the accused person, aforementioned, committed more and more offence/offences, he can certainly incorporate all those offences in the charge-sheet to be filed against him. 9. With the above observations/clarifications, this miscellaneous application is disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be furnished to the Investigating Officer of Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 67 of 2011, for necessary and prompt action.