Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 13 (RAJ)

Rajshekhar Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

2021-01-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioner Rajshekhar seeking quashing of FIR No. 204/2016 registered at the Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A & 166 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of this misc. petition are that the complainant Hansraj, lodged a complaint in the court of ACJM, Sangaria which was forwarded to the police station concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis whereof, an FIR came to be registered at the Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh on 07.04.2016 with the allegation that the complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Sarita and grandson Risham had set off in his Indica Car No. DL 8 CNA 2839 on 31.05.2014 and were proceeding to Hanumangarh from Village Fazilka. They reached the location Singhpura on the Sadulshahar Road at about 12:00 to 12:15 pm where their car met with an accident with a Hyundai Car No. RJ 31 CA 4610, the driver whereof was the petitioner herein. The complainant Hansraj, his wife Smt. Sarita and his grandson Risham were all seriously injured in the accident. People from neighbourhood carried them to the Community Health Centre, Sadulshahar from where they were referred to a Higher Centre. All three were admitted in the Amba Hospital, Sriganganagar where the complainant's wife Smt. Sarita succumbed to injuries, whereas the complainant and his grandson were required to undergo treatment for a prolonged period of time. On the basis of this report, the impugned FIR No. 204/2016 came to be registered at the Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh almost after one year and ten months of the incident. 3. It may be stated here that for the very same incident, an FIR No.260/2014 dated 01.06.2014 had already been registered on the basis of the Parcha Bayan of Hanuman, one of the occupants of the Hyundai Car (No. RJ 31 CA 4610). As per the allegations set out in that FIR, the driver of the Hyundai Car Shri Prem Kumar expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the collision. The investigation was undertaken in relation to FIR No. 260/2014 and the chargesheet has been filed against the complainant Hansraj in the competent court for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC. The investigation was undertaken in relation to FIR No. 260/2014 and the chargesheet has been filed against the complainant Hansraj in the competent court for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A IPC. After one year and ten months of the accident i.e., on 07.04.2016, the complainant herein lodged the subject complaint in the court of learned ACJM, Sangaria alleging that as a matter of fact, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Hyundai Car. It was further alleged that as a matter of fact, the petitioner Rajshekhar was driving the Hyundai Car but using his clout with the police authorities, he managed to get registered a totally false FIR implicating the complainant Hansraj in the said case. The complaint so filed by the complainant was forwarded to the Police Station Sangaria for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon the impugned FIR has been registered. 4. Shri Pawan Bishnoi, counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but a second FIR for the same accident and on the same set of facts. He further urged that the FIR is totally malafide and actuated with ulterior motive because the complainant had been charge-sheeted as long back as on 12.03.2015 for causing the very accident after investigation of the FIR No.260/2014 registered on the basis of the Parcha Bayan of Hanuman Singh, who was the occupant of the Hyundai Car in which the petitioner was also travelling. Driver of the said car namely Prem Kumar expired and Shri Hansraj has been charge-sheeted in the competent court after investigation and thus, there cannot be a second FIR for the same accident. Shri Bishnoi, urged that if it all, the complainant is desirous of establishing that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Hyundai car, then he would have to prove this fact in the trial being held after the investigation of FIR No.260/2014. On these submissions, Shri Pawan Bishnoi, counsel representing the petitioner craved acceptance of this misc. petition and sought quashing of the impugned FIR. 5. Per contra, Shri Deepak Menaria, learned counsel representing the complainant opposed the submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel. On these submissions, Shri Pawan Bishnoi, counsel representing the petitioner craved acceptance of this misc. petition and sought quashing of the impugned FIR. 5. Per contra, Shri Deepak Menaria, learned counsel representing the complainant opposed the submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel. He submitted that the petitioner managed lodging of the earlier FIR (No. 260/2014) fraudulently and with false allegations by using his clout and as such, the present FIR cannot be termed to be second FIR on the same facts. He contended that trial of both the cases can be undertaken simultaneously and sought dismissal of the misc. petition. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record a factual report reflecting that at one point of time, upon investigation of the present FIR, the IO had concluded that the case was false and a negative final report had been chalked out. However, later on, by virtue of an order issued by the Superintendent of Police, the case has been reopened and the accused petitioner has been asked to give evidence for proving his innocence. He thus urges that no interference is called for in the impugned FIR while exercising inherent powers of this Court. 7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the FIR and other documents placed on record. 8. Suffice it to say that the fact regarding the investigation of FIR No. 260/2014 registered for the very same accident having culminated into a charge sheet against the complainant is not disputed. After investigation, pertinent conclusion of the Investigating Agency in that case was that the complainant herein drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for causing the accident. Law is well settled by a catena of Supreme Court judgments, some of which are being cited below, that there cannot be two FIRs on the same subject and in relation to same incident. Allowing such a course of action, would lead to an absolutely ambiguous situation inasmuch as the issues for decision in both the cases would be totally self-contradictory leading to a grave anomaly. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has firmly laid down in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 that it is not permissible to register two FIRs for the same incident. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has firmly laid down in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 that it is not permissible to register two FIRs for the same incident. That apart, the FIR in question came to be lodged through a complaint lodged by the respondent Hansraj after nearly one year and ten months of the incident and no justification is shown for such a gross delay in lodging of the complaint. 10. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that registration of the impugned FIR and continued investigation thereof amounts to a sheer abuse of process of law and hence, it is a fit case warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court for quashing the same. 11. Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No. 204/2016 registered at Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof, are hereby quashed. The stay application is disposed of.