Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1234 (GAU)

Suren Gogoi v. State of Assam

2015-09-22

PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Paran Kumar Phukan, J. 1. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 12.05.2015 lodged by the then Inspector of School, Karbi Anglong District Circle, Diphu before Dokmoka Police Station on the basis of which Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 40/2015 under Sections 468/471/420 IPC has been registered. 2. It is contended inter-alia that the petitioner is serving as a Post Graduate teacher of Dokmoka Higher Secondary School. Being the senior most subject teacher of the school, he was given charge of the Principal of the said school by the outgoing Principal. Another Assistant teacher of the school, Deva Kanta Deka claiming seniority and aspiring for the post of Principal-in-Charge filed an FIR before Dokmoka Police Station alleging that the B.Ed. Certificate of the petitioner was fake. On the strength of that FIR, Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 6/2015 was registered. The petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court in that case on 22.05.2015. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2, Inspector of School, Karbi Anglong lodged the impugned FIR with Dokmoka Police Station regarding the same subject matter and alleged that the B.Ed. Certificate and mark sheet of the petitioner were fake. Being aggrieved by the second FIR, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the same. 4. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there cannot be a second FIR in respect of the same offence and the second FIR at best could be treated as statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. On perusal of both the FIRs, I have found that the same sort of allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The first FIR was filed by Deva Kanta Deka on 17.12.2014 and on the strength of that FIR, police registered the case being Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 6/2015. 5. On 08.05.2015, the Inspector of Schools filed the second FIR, wherein, he has alleged that the B.Ed. Certificate of the petitioner was fake and he has ascertained this fact from the concerned University. On the strength of this FIR, Dokmoka Police again registered the Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 40/2015. 6. It is a settled principle of law that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. Certificate of the petitioner was fake and he has ascertained this fact from the concerned University. On the strength of this FIR, Dokmoka Police again registered the Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 40/2015. 6. It is a settled principle of law that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. In Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the second FIR in respect of the same offence or incident forming part of the, same transaction as contained in the first FIR is not permissible. However, the Supreme Court held that second FIR for an unrelated incident and for offence of such magnitude which does not fall within the ambit of first FIR, is permissible. 7. In the instant case, in both the FIRs, the same sort of allegation has been brought against the petitioner and the allegation is that he produced a fake B.Ed. Certificate before the concerned authority. In the second FIR filed by the Inspector of School, there was no mention of the first FIR lodged by the Assistant Teacher of the School. In Anju Chaudhun (Supra), the Apex Court observed as follows:- “It is a settled principle of law that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. The inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 Cr.P.C. can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating authority of the police. Therefore, a second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered.” 8. In the case in hand, since the second FIR has been registered for the same offence, it is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed, which I accordingly do. The proper legal recourse to be followed by police is to club together both the cases and conduct the investigation by treating both the cases as Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 6/2015, which was registered on the basis of the first FIR lodged in connection with the incident. The concerned Investigating Officer is directed to proceed with the investigation in the light of the direction given. 9. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.