Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Mishra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 September, 2023
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175305-DB
Reserved on 29.08.2023
Delivered on 06.09.2023
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12274 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gaurav Mishra And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 21.07.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.0166 of 2023, under Sections 147, 308, 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Dumariyaganj, District- Siddharth Nagar.
3. It is submitted that an incident is alleged to have taken place in Agrahari Hotel on 21.07.2023 which was an altercation between two parties having dinner there, wherein, even the hotel employees are alleged to have been assaulted.
4. A first information report was lodged by the Manager of Agrahari Hotel on 21.07.2023 at 23:21 hours under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C.
5. Another FIR, allegedly a cross first information report, by the petitioners was lodged on the same day at 23:36 hours under Sections 307, 392, 323, 147 IPC.
6. A third first information report was lodged by Rajeev Agrahari at 23:41 hours on the same day under Sections 147, 308, 392, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. All the three first information reports were lodged at Police Station-Dumariyaganj.
7. It is the first information report lodged by Rajeev Agrahari at 23:41 hours which is impugned in this writ petition.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that this is a second first information report, the first information report having been lodged by the Manager of the hotel at 23:21hours. The first information report lodged by Rajeev Agrahari at 23:41 hours, being a second first information report regarding the same incident, the same was hit by the ratio in T.T. Anthony case. The first information report is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
9. Learned AGA has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the first information report impugned would also amount to a cross first information report as all the three first information reports have been lodged by different persons with different allegations. The accused therein are not identical although same are common.
10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court in the case of T. T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala and others 2001 6 SCC 181 has held that two first information reports regarding the same incident are non-permissible. However, the said judgment came up for consideration by the Apex Court in the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & others. It has been observed in Upkar Singh (supra) as follows:-
"Having carefully gone through above judgment, we do not think that this Court in the said cases of T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala and others has precluded an aggrieved person from filing a counter case as in the present case..................................."
In the same judgment the Apex Court has also observed :-
"................................ it is clear from the words emphasized here-in-above in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T. T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala & others has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint............"
11. The Apex Court has also observed that "but where there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency."
12. Similarly, in P. Sreekumar Vs. The State of Kerala (2018) 4 SCC 579 in paragraph 33 thereof, it has been observed as follows:-
"33). It is for the reasons that firstly, the second FIR was not filed by the same person, who had filed the first FIR. Had it been so, then the situation would have been somewhat different. Such was not the case here; Second, it was filed by the appellant as a counter-complaint against respondent No.3; Third, the first FIR was against five persons based on one set of allegations whereas the second FIR was based on the allegations different from the allegations made in the first FIR; and Lastly, the High Court while quashing the second FIR/charge-sheet did not examine the issue arising in the case in the light of law laid down by this Court in two aforementioned decisions of this Court in the cases of Upkar Singh (supra) and Surender Kaushik (supra) and simply referred three decisions of this Court mentioned above wherein this Court has laid down general principle of law relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code."
13. From the case law noticed above, it is clear that where there are counter versions of first information reports lodged by different persons even though they pertain to the same incident, the said first information reports are permissible. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, cannot be accepted.
14. In view of the above and since the allegations in the impugned first information report contain the ingredients of a cognizable offence, the first information report is not liable to be quashed. It is also not liable to be quashed as it contains a counter version and has been lodged by another informant and cannot, in view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court, be said to be a second first information report.
15. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant writ petition, however subject to the observation that the investigation of all the three first information reports lodged within a period of half an hour, which manifestly pertain to the same incident, ideally be investigated by the same investigating officer.
Order Date :- 6.9.2023
Aditya Tripathi/Mayank
