Allahabad High Court
Quarban And 23 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Sl. No.319)
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17337 of 2016
Applicant :- Quarban And 23 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais,Prateek Kumar,Sumit Goyal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey,G.A.,Mohd.Aslam Ansari,Vikas Sharma
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Goyal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Case No. 6851 of 2015 (Saleem Vs. Qurban and others) arising out of final report No. 59 of 2015 dated 25.8.2015 in Case Crime No. 151 of 2015, under Section 397 IPC, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for an incident dated 02.11.2014, one Shamim Ahmad has lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 309 of 2014, under Sectin 147, 148, 336, 352, 323, 427 IPC. With regard to the same incident, a cross case being Case Crime No. 309-A of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 308, 506 IPC was filed by one Dilshad son of Meer Hasan. Both the cases were registered as cross cases and in both the cases, the charge sheet were filed and the trial is already in progress. After registration of both the FIRs in the aforesaid cases on 02.11.2014 as well as on 04.11.2014, the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed and a direction was issued for registration of the FIR on behalf of the opposite party no.2 with regard to the same incident dated 02.11.2014. After registration of FIR, the matter was investigated in detail and a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer categorically stating therein that the instant case relates to the same offence for which an FIR being Case Crime No. 309 of 2014 was registered and the charge sheet was already filed. Subsequent thereto a protest petition was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the said final report dated 25.02.2015, whereupon the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants herein vide order dated 13.10.2015, against which a criminal revision petition no. 4 of 2016 was preferred by the applicants, which is also rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 05.05.2016, against which the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants herein.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the FIR for the same incident has already been registered and the charge sheet has already been filed and the trial is in progress. In support of his submissions, he is relying upon the judgments of Apex Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, Amit Bhai Anil Chandra Shah vs. CBI and another, (2013) 6 SCC 348 Krishna Lal Chawla vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 5 SCC 435. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case as well as the instant FIR being second FIR for the same cause of action.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the instant application, learned counsel for the applicants has not annexed the injury report of various injured persons, which have been filed along with the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, which is taken on record.
6. However, so far as the legal position is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel has admitted the legal position that for the same cause of action, the second FIR is impermissible as the same is violative of Article 20 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned AGA also submits that for the same cause of action, the second FIR is impermissible unless the same is a cross case.
8. In T.T. Antony (supra), the Apex Court has observed 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 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) CrPC."
9. In Amit Bhai Anil Chandra Shah (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under:
"This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. In T.T.Antony, this Court has categorically held that registration of second FIR (which is not a cross -case) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution."
10. In Krishna Lal Chawla (supra), the Apex Court has observed that it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing the processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants.
11. In view of the aforesaid categorical observation that the second FIR for the same cause of action is not permissible under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the instant application is allowed.
12. The Summoning order dated 13.10.2015 as well as the Revisional Court's order dated 05.05.2016 and the entire proceeding arising out of Case No. 6851 of 2015 (Saleem Vs. Qurban and others) arising out of final report No. 59 of 2015 dated 25.8.2015 in Case Crime No. 151 of 2015, under Section 397 IPC, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2025
Ashish Pd.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
