Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1302 of 2014
Kailash Chandra Gupta
........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
..... Opposite Party
Present:-
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for the respondent no. 3.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the charge
sheets dated 19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014, summoning order dated
01.09.2014 passed in Case No. 2636 of 2014, State v. Kripa Ram
Kashyap and another, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner
for the offences punishable under Section 409, 477A IPC (“the case”),
as well as the entire proceedings of Case pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. Briefly stated, the events prompted by the petitioner to
file instant criminal misc. Application are as follows:-
(i) On 10.11.2010, based on a report of the
Executive Engineer, Electricity Division,
Srinagar, FIR No. 2205 of 2010 dated
10.11.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC was lodged against one Laxmi
2Chand at Police Station Srinagar, District
Pauri Garhwal (“the First FIR”). According to
this FIR, Laxmi Chand applied in the
Electricity Department for his appointment,
in the year 1987 and the then Executive
Engineer i.e. the petitioner offered him an
appointment letter, but, Laxmi Chand had
placed forged permanent resident certificate
along with his application for appointment.
The FIR records that, in fact, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Pratapnagar, Tehri
Garhwal had informed that Laxmi Chand is
not the permanent resident of that district.
(ii) On the First FIR, the Investigating Officer
submitted the Final Report No. 2 of 2011. In
the Final Report, he records that the
appointment of Laxmi Chand was
subsequently cancelled, but he was
reinstated by an order of the Labour Court;
the decision of the Labour Court was
challenged before the High Court and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, but his
reinstatement was upheld.
(iii) On this Final Report, a protest petition was
filed, which was treated as a complaint and
the complaint being Criminal Complaint
Case No. 285 of 2012, M.L. Badhani v. Laxmi
3
Chand, was dismissed under Section 203 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the
Code”) on 07.03.2016 by the Judicial
Magistrate, Srinagar, district Pauri Garhwal.
This order was challenged in Criminal
Revision No. 06 of 2014, M.L. Badhani v.
Laxmi Chand and another, before the court
of District & Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal
(“the revision”), but the revision was also
dismissed.
(iv) After dismissal of the revision, the action
pursuant to the First FIR came to a close.
(v) Again, the respondent no. 3 Shanti Prasad
Bhatt lodged FIR No. 3 of 2013 dated
01.01.2013 under Sections 409, 477-A IPC
against the petitioner and one Kripa Ram
Kashyap, at Police Station Dalanwala,
District Dehradun (“the Second FIR”). The
allegation in the Second FIR was with regard
to illegal appointment of Laxmi Chand,
because according to the Second FIR, the
appointment of Laxmi Chand was secured by
placing forged permanent resident certificate.
In the Second FIR, after investigation Charge
Sheet No. 16 of 2013 was submitted against
the petitioner and another for the offence
under Section 477A IPC and a
4
supplementary Charge Sheet No. 16A of
2023 was submitted under Section 409 IPC,
on which cognizance was taken on
01.09.2014, which is the basis of the case. It
is impugned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on
the First FIR, investigation had completed and Final Report was
submitted, which was accepted; protest petition against the Final
Report was filed, which was treated as a complaint, which was
subsequently rejected by order dated 07.03.2016; against the order
dated 07.03.2016, the revision was filed, which was also rejected. It is
argued that based on the same facts, second FIR cannot be lodged;
therefore, the charge sheets dated 19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014, the
summoning order dated 01.09.2014 and the entire proceedings of the
Case, which is based on the Second FIR are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned Counsel for the State as well as the respondent
no. 3 does not dispute the lodging of the First FIR, its investigation
and submission of the Final Report in the First FIR. It is also admitted
by the learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3 that the Final Report was challenged in a protest
petition, which was treated as a complaint, which was dismissed on
07.03.2016. It is also admitted that against the dismissal of the
complaint, the revision was filed, which was also dismissed on
09.11.2016. Learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for
the respondent no. 3 admitted that on the same facts second FIR has
been lodged. Both the learned Counsel submit that instant
5
proceedings, in view of the settled law could not have been initiated;
therefore, they do not object to the present petition.
6. Successive FIR is not permissible, though further
investigation is permissible under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the
Code. This aspect has been widely considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others 1, where
in para 19 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
“19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge
of a police station has to commence investigation as provided
in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first
information report, on coming to know of the commission of a
cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the
basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion
under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and
forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section
173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he
comes into possession of further information or material, he
need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make
further investigation, normally with the leave of the court,
and where during further investigation he collects further
evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the
same with one or more further reports; this is the import of
sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC.”
7. Further in para 27 of the judgment in the case of T.T.
Antony (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “In our
view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or
successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection
with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have
been committed in the course of the same transaction and in
respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is
1
(2001) 6 SCC 181
6
under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of
power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution.” Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
“the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC on
the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime
No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and
consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no
legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed…….”
8. Similar are the facts in the instant case. Based on the
First FIR, Final Report was submitted, against which a protest
petition was filed and treated as a complaint. The complaint was
dismissed, which was unsuccessfully challenged in the revision. That
chapter has been closed. On the same facts, second FIR could not
have been filed, based on which the charge sheets dated 19.02.2013
and 06.08.2014 was submitted and impugned summoning order has
been passed.
9. Therefore, while quashing the charge sheets dated
19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014 and setting aside the summoning order
dated 01.09.2014 and the entire proceedings of the case, this Court
is of the view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
10. The petition is allowed.
11. The charge sheets dated 19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014, the
summoning order dated 01.09.2014 as well as the entire proceedings
of Case No. 2636 of 2014, State v. Kripa Ram Kashyap and another,
7
pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.07.2025
Avneet/
[ad_1]
Source link