9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in very close proximity with one another. A careful perusal of the site map of the incident, reproduced hereinabove, shows that on 24.02.2020, a mob entered the compound where the properties are situated, ransacked it and set it ablaze. It may be so that the properties are different or distinct from one another but are located in one compound. It is also to be noted that most of the houses in the said compound belong to the same family and were owned by different members of the family after being divided by their forefathers. In T.T. ANTONY VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [ 2001 (7) TMI 1322 - SUPREME COURT ], the Supreme Court has held 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 underway 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 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The law on the subject has been settled keeping in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d summoning orders dated 08.05.2020, 05.10.2020, 05.11.2020, 18.11.2020, 01.12.2020, 14.12.2020, 24.12.2020, 06.01.2021, 19.01.2021, 02.02.2021, 16.02.2021 in CR Cases No. 2949/2020 and orders dated 02.03.2021 and 16.03.2021 passed in SC No.102/2021. 4. CRL.M.C. 1233/2021 has been filed for quashing FIR No. 113/2020, dated 02.03.2020, registered at Police Station Jaffrabad for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436 and 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of PDPP Act and subsequent charge-sheet dated 07.05.2020 registered as CR. Cases No.2043/2020 and committed as SC No.49/2021 and summoning orders dated 08.05.2020, 22.05.2020, 15.10.2020, 18.11.2020, 28.11.2020, 14.12.2020, 24.12.2020, 06.01.2021, 19.01.2020 in CR Cases No. 2043/2020 and orders dated 02.02.2021, 11.02.2021, 24.02.2021 and 10.03.2021 passed in SC No.49/2021. 5. The main facts as mentioned in FIR No. 106/2020 is that a complaint of arson in house No. T-209B, main road Maujpur Area, near Victor Public School, Maujpur, Delhi. It was stated by the complainant that he reached his house in the evening from work and saw his house was set on fire. It stated that a Fire Brigade bearing number '926225'was called t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her that FIR Nos.106/2020, 107/2020, 112/2020, 113/2020 have been filed by different members of the same family, she submits that the fire brigade which extinguished the inferno was by the same truck bearing unique No. 926225. She further contends that the consecutive FIRs could not have been filed in respect of the same offence and it directly comes in the teeth of the principles laid down in the case of TT Antony V. State of Kerala, 2001 6 SCC 181, which states that more than one FIR cannot be registered for one offence. 11. Per Contra, Mr. Anuj Handa, learned SPP appearing for the State, submits at the very outset that this petition is ill-conceived and deserves a summary dismissal. He further submits that all the five FIRs- 106/2020, 107/2020, 112/2020, 113/2020 and 132/2020 have been filed in respect of distinct properties and the subject matter of each of the FIRs is different from the others. In support of this contention the learned APP has relied on a site map which, according to him, demonstrates that each incident of arson in respective FIRs is in respect of distinct properties and the damages borne has been incurred by residents of the burnt premises have been individu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Narangs' case (supra) 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 citizen 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) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will thus be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are different, or even where subsequent crime is of the magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR first recorded, then a second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by investigating authority of the Police. Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Ofcourse, the investigating agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the code. The filing of report upon completion of investigation, either for cancellation or alleging commission of an offence, is a matter which once filed before the court of comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge within the same compound or the exact place where the fire was set but both sides agree that it is within one compound. The complainant in FIR No.113/2020 himself has stated that the property is an ancestral property which has been subdivided pursuant to a family arrangement. The entire incident has occurred when the mob entered the compound and set fire at different places within the same compound. Same truck bearing unique No.926225 came to the spot to douse the fire. It, therefore, cannot be said that there are five separate incidents and, therefore, five separate FIRs cannot be registered for the very same incident as it is contrary to the laws laid down by the Supreme Court. It cannot be said that the incidents were separate or the offences are different. As stated earlier, a perusal of the charge-sheets filed in the respective FIRs show that they are more or less identical and the accused are also same. However, if there is any material that has been found against the accused the same can be placed on record in FIR No.106/2020. 21. In view of the said principles and precedents, save FIR No. 106/2020 registered on 01.03.2020 at Police Station Jaffrabad, FIR No. 107/2020, F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
