Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 178 (MP)

Rahul Maheshwari v. State of M. P.

2017-02-03

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2017
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No.497/2012 registered by Police Station City Kotwali, Morena, District Morena for offences punishable under sections 506, 337 and 338/34 of IPC. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application are that the respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint under section 200 of CrPC for offences punishable under sections 506, 337 and 338/34 of IPC against the applicant and the respondent No.3 on the allegations that the applicant is the proprietor of Madhu Radio Show Room, Station Road, Morena, whereas, the respondent No.3 was the contractor executing the work as directed by the applicant. On 16.1.2012, at 12 p.m., the applicant and the respondent No.3 without providing any security to the respondent No.2 compelled him to fix the advertisement hoarding of Madhu Radio on an electric pole, as a result of which, the respondent No.2 suffered an electric shock. He was admitted in the District Hospital, where the applicant and the respondent No.3 along with their friends had come and requested him that he should not lodge a police report and the respondent No.2 will be got medically treated. However, the expenses of the medical treatment of the respondent No.2 were not afforded by the applicant and the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 was referred to Gwalior where his right hand and the thumb of his left leg was amputated and there is a possibility that the left hand of the respondent No.2 may also be amputated. The mother of the respondent No.2 had gone to the Police Station Kotwali, Morena for lodging a FIR but the police refused to lodge the FIR. A written complaint was made on 19.1.2012. On 20.1.2012, the mother of the complainant was called for recording her statement and then the respondent No.2 came to know that the applicant has not been made an accused in the matter and only the respondent No.3 has been made an accused. Accordingly, it was prayed that the cognizance of offence may be taken against the applicant and the respondent No.3. 3. By order dated 2.7.2012, the CJM, Morena passed an order under section 156 (3) of CrPC and directed the Police Station, City Kotwali, Morena to submit its report. Accordingly, it was prayed that the cognizance of offence may be taken against the applicant and the respondent No.3. 3. By order dated 2.7.2012, the CJM, Morena passed an order under section 156 (3) of CrPC and directed the Police Station, City Kotwali, Morena to submit its report. In compliance of order dated 2.7.2012, the Police Station, City Kotwali, Morena registered the present FIR No.497/2012 against the applicant and the respondent No.3. 4. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the FIR is bad in law because on the FIR lodged by Smt.Bano (mother of the complainant/respondent No.2) the police had already registered the FIR No.79/2012 for the similar offence and although the applicant was not arrayed as an accused but two FIR's for the similar offence are not permissible. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the cases of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others [ (2010)12 SCC 254 ], T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others [ (2001)6 SCC 181 ], and Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [ (2013)6 SCC 384 ]. 5. In the case of T.T. Antony (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under :- “20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in section 173 CrPC.” 6. Thus, it is clear that in respect of one cognizable offence, two different FIRs cannot be recorded. Merely because in the subsequently filed complaint, the name of the applicant is also mentioned apart from the respondent No.3 against whom a charge sheet was already filed then it would not mean that because of an additional accused two FIR's for the same cognizable offence are permissible. 7. During the course of arguments, it is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even the respondent No.3 in the previously lodged FIR has been acquitted. In the said case, the applicant was cited as a witness. If the prosecution was of the view that the applicant has also committed an offence and he is vicariously liable for the criminal rash and negligent act by forcing the respondent No.2 to fix the hoarding on the electric pole without ensuring the proper security then the applicant could have been made an accused in the trial either taking recourse of section 190 of CrPC or section 319 of CrPC but the applicant cannot be made an accused by lodging a second FIR for the same cognizable offence. As it is clear that two FIRs i.e. 79/2012 and 497/2012 were registered for the same cognizable offence and the FIR No.497/2012 is subsequent in time, therefore, the present petition by which the registration of FIR No.497/2012 has been challenged on the ground of second FIR for the same cognizable offence deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the FIR No.497/2012 registered by Police Station, City Kotwali, Morena is hereby quashed. 9. By order dated 10.10.2012, this Court had directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of FIR No.497/2012. It is submitted that no charge sheet has been filed so far. 10. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.