Uttarakhand High Court
C482/794/2017 on 18 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7268
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482 No.794 of 2017
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Parth Tamta, Advocate, holding
brief of Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are
that respondent no.2-Smt. Chandrakanta
moved a complaint before Police Station
Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar against the
applicant and four others for lodging an
F.I.R. against them for the offences
punishable under Section 354, 323, 147,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of
S.C./S.T. Act. After investigation, the Police
submitted the Final Report. In the Final
Report, it is stated that there is a suit
pending between the respondent no.2 and
the applicant in the Court of Consolidation
Officer and that the respondent no.2 have
no medical evidence regarding the injuries
and since both the parties belong to
Scheduled Caste community, therefore, the
offences punishable under Section 3(1)(10)
of S.C./S.T. Act are not applicable to the
present case. The said Final Report was
accepted by the Magistrate on 04.09.2013.
Against the Final Report, respondent no.2
filed a Protest Petition on 23.12.2013. The
same was rejected vide order dated
17.05.2014. Aggrieved by the said order,
respondent no.2 preferred a Revision, which
too was dismissed on 06.08.2014.
Respondent no.2 did not further challenge
the order and, instead surprisingly,
respondent no.2 preferred a complaint
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the
Magistrate on the same facts, which were
mentioned in the complaint, pursuant to
2025:UHC:7268
which F.I.R. was lodged. After recording the
statement of the respondent no.2, the
Magistrate took cognizance and issued
summons to the applicant vide order dated
30.05.2015. Against the order dated
30.05.2015, applicant preferred Revision.
The Revision filed by the applicant was
dismissed by the Revisional Court on
08.03.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved,
applicant has filed this criminal misc.
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that, after investigation, the
Investigating Officer did not find any
substance in the allegations levelled against
the applicant and have submitted the Final
Report and respondent no.2 have filed a
Protest Petition challenging the Final Report,
which too was dismissed; that the Revision
Petition filed by respondent no.2 has also
been dismissed; that, once the proceedings
are taken to the logical end, then a party is
not permitted to raise the issue by agitating
it in a different forum on the self same
facts.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala &
others“, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181,
while dealing with an identical issue, has
held as under:
“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights
of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution and the expansive power of the police
to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck
by the court. There cannot be any controversy that
sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the
police to make further investigation, obtain further
evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward
a further report or reports to the Magistrate.
In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
479] it was, however, observed that it would be
appropriate to conduct further investigation with the
permission of the court. However, the sweeping
power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a
2025:UHC:7268citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police
in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or
more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of
successive FIRs whether before or after filing the
final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would
clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and
156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory
power of investigation in a given case. 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
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.”
5. Similarly, in the case of “State of
Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Singh Rathore“,
reported in 2025 SCC On Line SC 358,
Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold
as under:
“10. As recorded supra, the High Court found that
the two FIRs were indeed in regard to the same
offence and, therefore, not maintainable, however,
in our view the scope of the two FIRs, as already
referred to in para 3 supra, are distinct. The FIR
prior in point of time refers to a particular incident
and the action taken therein is limited. The second
FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread
corruption in the concerned department and,
therefore, is much larger in its scope than the
previous FIR.”
6. Law is well settled. It does not
prohibit filing or entertaining of the second
complaint even on the same facts, provided
the earlier complaint has been decided on
the basis of insufficient material or the order
has been passed without understanding the
nature of the complaint or the complete
facts could not be placed before the Court or
where the complainant came to know
certain facts after disposal of the first
complaint which could have tilted the
2025:UHC:7268
balance in his favour. However, second
complaint would not be maintainable
wherein the earlier complaint has been
disposed of on full consideration of the case
of the complainant on merit. In the case in
hand, another complaint on the self same
facts was registered by the respondent no.2
and since the first complaint registered by
respondent no.2 was taken to its logical
end, hence, the second complaint for the
same incident could not have been
registered.
7. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, this
Court has no hesitation in quashing the
entire proceedings of the complaint case
registered against the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the criminal misc.
application is allowed and the order dated
08.03.2017 passed by learned 5th
Additional District Judge, Haridwar in
Criminal Revision No.409 of 2015 as well as
summoning order dated 30.05.2015 issued
by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate,
Roorkee is set aside. The entire proceedings
of Complaint Case No. 3809 of 2014,
pending in the Court of learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District
Haridwar are hereby quashed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
18.08.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3
a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510
9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2025.08.19 15:16:16 +05’30’