Gujarat High Court
Patel Ratilal Ambalal vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 13/08/2025
Pronounced On : 14/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PATEL RATILAL AMBALAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AM PAREKH(562) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LR PATHAN(2370) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 14/11/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application has been filed by
the applicant-original accused no. 2 under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(in short "Cr.P.C.") challenging the order dated
29.03.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Kadi in Inquiry Case No. 14 of
2006, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offences and ordered issuance of non-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
bailable warrants against the accused persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149,
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 135 of
the Bombay Police Act. The learned Magistrate has
further directed the Registry to register the case by
assigning a new criminal case number and ordered that
Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 be amalgamated with the
present complaint and that both matters be tried
together.
2. The factual background leading to the filing of the
present revision application is that respondent No. 2 - the
original complainant lodged an FIR being C.R. No. I-99 of
2004 at Kadi Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police
Act against five accused persons, including the present
petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. 2. In the
nutshell, original complainant - Jhala Bhupatsinh
Kuvarsinh, lodged the said FIR on 20.03.2004.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
3. In a nutshell, it is alleged in the FIR that on the date
of the incident, at about 5:30 p.m., the complainant was
at his home when his cousin brother, Jenaji Pruthviraj,
came to his house on a scooter and asked him to
accompany him for purchasing goats. Thereafter, both of
them proceeded on the scooter towards Charol Road, and
at about 5:45 p.m., when they reached near Visatpura
Chokdi, accused persons, namely Patel Munabhai
Zaverbhai, Patel Ratilal Ambalal, Patel Bhemabhai
Chaturbhai, Patel Mavjibhai Maganbhai and Patel
Babubhai, Doctor, all residents of Village Visatpura
intercepted them and started abusing Jenaji. Jenaji then
drove the scooter forward, and both of them thereafter
proceeded to Koyda Village, where, after making
inquiries regarding goats, thereafter they returned at
about 7:00 p.m. At around 7:50 p.m., when they reached
near Visathpur Village, the same accused persons were
present with a tractor. They stopped the scooter, and
accused - Munnabhai, who was armed with a spade
(locally known as "Kodali"), assaulted Jenaji on the head.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Accused Bhutabhai Chaturbhai Patel also beat Jenaji with
a stick, and the remaining accused Mavjibhai, Babubhai,
and Ratilal, who were armed with sticks, also assaulted
him. Thereafter, the accused started the tractor and ran it
over Jenaji. They then threw him to the side of the road
and fled away from the scene. The complainant then
called his relatives, and upon reaching the place of the
incident, they found that Jenaji had already expired, his
skull was fractured, he had sustained multiple injuries,
and the front portion of the scooter was damaged.
Thereafter, the complainant informed Kadi Police Station
and lodged the FIR against the said five accused persons.
3.1. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation
was commenced and thereafter, on the request of the
original complainant, the investigation was transferred to
the Local Crime Branch, Mehsana. Upon completion of
the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-
sheet against all the accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code, and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Vehicles Act.
3.2 Thereafter, being aggrieved by filing of the charge-
sheet, the original complainant moved an application
before the learned Magistrate, Kadi, seeking further
investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected the
said application by order dated 13.09.2005. The said
order was challenged by the original complainant -
present respondent No. 2, by filing Criminal Revision
Application No. 84 of 2005 before the Sessions Court.
Meanwhile, the complainant had also approached this
Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 296 of
2004. However, as the investigation had already been
transferred to the Local Crime Branch and subsequently a
charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences under
Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC and Sections 177, 184
and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said proceedings
did not survive. The Sessions Court also rejected the
Revision Application vide order dated 29.09.2005. While
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
rejecting the revision application, the Sessions Court
merely observed that if the complainant still felt that his
grievance had not been heard, he could record the
statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
before the Court, or, in the alternative, he could file a
private complaint and examine the witnesses.
3.3 Pursuant to the said observation, and after the
revision was rejected on 29.09.2005, original complainant
- Jhala Bhupatsinh Kuvarsinh filed a private complaint
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 31.03.2006
against the very same five accused persons who were
named in the FIR which was registered at Kadi Police
Station being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004. The private complaint
was filed for the alleged offences under Sections 302,
147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In paragraph 2 of
the private complaint, the complainant reproduced the
FIR lodged at Kadi Police Station. In paragraph 3, he
stated that although the investigation had been carried
out and further transferred to various officers, the police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
had not recorded the statements of the witnesses as per
their version. He again narrated that despite the FIR
disclosing serious offences, the police filed a charge-sheet
only for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian
Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the M.V.
Act. He further stated that his application under Section
173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. had been
rejected by the learned Magistrate and that Criminal
Revision Application No. 84 of 2005 before the Sessions
Court was also dismissed, with the observation that the
complainant may record statements under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure or file a private
complaint.
3.4 Accordingly, the complainant filed the private
complaint, also making allegations against the police
officials. He submitted the list of witnesses, including
Jijiben Jaypanbhai, Chandubhai Bhangi, medical officers,
a copy of the FIR being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004, complaint-
inquest panchnama, and other documents. Upon filing of
the complaint, the learned Magistrate ordered an inquiry
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
the Court. An inquiry was carried out, witnesses were
examined, and thereafter, on 29.03.2007, the learned
Magistrate passed an order below Exh. 1 in Criminal
Inquiry No. 14 of 2006 holding that the offences under
Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B IPC and Section
135 of the Bombay Police Act were disclosed. The learned
Magistrate took cognizance and ordered issuance of non-
bailable warrants against the accused persons.
3.5 Further, the learned Magistrate directed that
Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005, which was already
pending pursuant to FIR C.R. No. I-99 of 2004, be
amalgamated with the private complaint so that both
matters could be tried together. The said order dated
29.03.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate is under
challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.M. Parekh for the
petitioner - original Accused No. 2, he submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
illegal, perverse, contrary to the provisions of law and
therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is
further submitted that the learned Magistrate committed
a grave error in directing registration of the private
complaint filed by respondent No. 2 - the original
complainant on 31.03.2006, and thereafter passing an
order in Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 (arising out of
C.R. No. I-99 of 2004, Kadi Police Station) for issuance of
non-bailable warrants against the applicant and other
accused persons for the offences under Sections 302,
147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the IPC and Section 135 of
the Bombay Police Act.
5. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 had
already lodged an FIR before Kadi Police Station on
20.03.2004 in respect of the same incident. The said FIR
was duly investigated by the Local Crime Branch, which
culminated into filing of a charge-sheet for the offences
under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code.
Despite this, after nearly two years of the incident, the
same complainant filed a second complaint for the very
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
same incident by way of a private complaint before the
Magistrate, which is not maintainable in law. Under the
settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, a second
complaint on the same facts, by the same complainant,
after completion of investigation and filing of a charge-
sheet, is impermissible. Therefore, the order passed by
the learned JMFC is illegal, perverse, and without
jurisdiction.
6. It is further submitted that pursuant to the same
incident, the same complainant had lodged the original
FIR, the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was
filed, and Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 is pending,
wherein charges have also been framed. The respondent
No. 2 has not challenged the framing of charge in
Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005. Instead, he has chosen to
file a private complaint for the very same incident, which
has been erroneously entertained by the learned
Magistrate. Hence, taking cognizance of the offences in
the private complaint of the same complainant for the
same incident, is wholly unsustainable. It is submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
that the impugned order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the
learned Magistrate in Inquiry Case No. 14 of 2006 is
required to be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.L.R. Pathan
for respondent No. 2 - original complainant, has
vehemently opposed the present revision application. He
submitted that, as per the settled principles of law, even a
second complaint is maintainable under certain
circumstances. In the present case, although the first FIR
was lodged by respondent No. 2, the police did not
properly investigate the matter. Since the Revisional
Court had granted liberty to the complainant to take
appropriate steps, the private complaint filed for the
same incident is permissible. It is submitted that,
therefore, considering the facts of the case, the second
complaint is maintainable, more particularly when the
earlier investigation is alleged to be defective.
8. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Pathan has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra
Singh Rathore, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16358 of
2024, decided on 19.02.2025. He submitted that even a
second FIR may be maintainable in exceptional
circumstances and, therefore, argued that the present
revision application is devoid of merits and deserves to be
dismissed.
9. Heard the rival submissions of both parties and
perused the impugned order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistate First Class, Kadi in Inquiry Case No. 14
of 2006 below Exh. 1.
10. The short facts of the case have already been
narrated hereinabove. It is not in dispute that, in respect
of the very same incident, two complaints have been filed
by the original complainant - present respondent No. 2.
The first complaint was the FIR, lodged on the date of the
incident itself by respondent No. 2 against five accused
persons, namely, Munnabhai, Ratilal, Bhemabhai,
Mavjibhai, and Babubhai, for the offences under Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
302, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 135
of the Bombay Police Act. As per the FIR, the incident
took place on 20.03.2004 at around 7:00 p.m. when the
complainant and the deceased Jenaji were travelling on a
scooter. It was alleged that the accused intercepted them,
accused Munnabhai gave a spade blow on the head of
Jenaji, the remaining accused persons, armed with sticks,
also assaulted him, and thereafter they allegedly ran a
tractor over Jenaji and the scooter, causing his death on
the spot.
11. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the
registration of the FIR being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004 at Kadi
Police Station, the investigation, on the request of the
complainant, was transferred to the Local Crime Branch,
Mehsana. Upon completion of the investigation, the Local
Crime Branch filed a charge-sheet against the accused
persons only for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-
A of the IPC and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
12. Further, the record shows that the Local Crime
Branch submitted a report to the learned Magistrate
stating that although the FIR was initially registered
under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC and
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, during the course
of investigation, it was revealed that the case was not one
of murder but, a vehicular accident. The report
recommended deletion of the Sections relating to murder
and unlawful assembly and addition of Sections 279 and
304-A IPC along with the relevant provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
13. The investigation by the Local Crime Branch, on the
basis of the post-mortem report, the scene of offence
panchnama, mechanical inspection, and statements of
witnesses, came to be concluded that the death of Jenaji
occurred due to an accident involving an Eicher Tractor
bearing registration No. GJ-2-U-8462 and the scooter
driven by Jenaji. It emerged that because of the impact of
the collision, Jenaji sustained fatal injuries and died on
the spot. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
one Bharatbhai Ranchhodbhai Raval, resident of Vadhai,
as the driver of the tractor alleged to have caused the
accident.
14. It is an admitted position that the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class has already taken cognizance of
the First C.R. No. 99 of 2004. Pursuant to the FIR, the
charge-sheet was filed and charges were also framed
against the accused persons. It is also undisputed that,
for the very same incident, in fact, verbatim the same
incident, a private complaint was subsequently filed by
the original complainant against the same five persons.
15. It is important to note that, in the police case arising
from First C.R. No. 99 of 2004, the Investigating Officer
obtained the opinion of the FSL Scientific Officer, secured
a report regarding the accident and the Eicher Tractor
bearing registration No. GJ-2-U-8462, and also recorded
the statements of the passengers in the tractor, including
Jijiben Rabari and other conductors and drivers. From the
post-mortem report as well, it has been concluded that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
the case is one of an accident. This factual position is not
in dispute.
16. It is also not in dispute that, after the filing of the
charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate at Kadi took
cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as C.R. No. 482 of
2005. In the private complaint inquiry registered as
Criminal Inquiry No. 14 of 2006, the allegations are
identical and are made against the same accused persons.
The contents of the FIR have been reproduced verbatim
in the private complaint, and subsequent developments
from the police case have also been incorporated, along
with allegations against the police. After holding an
inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the learned trial Court took cognizance and
issued non-bailable warrants against all the accused
persons for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149,
and 120-B of the IPC, and Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
17. Thus, it is an admitted position that the Magistrate
has taken cognizance twice for the same incident, once
on the police report and again on the private complaint
filed by the same complainant against the same accused
persons. There is a settled principle of law that a
Magistrate does not take cognizance of an "offence" twice
over, and normally, a second complaint for the same
incident is not maintainable. Only if the second complaint
discloses a distinct offence, or brings on record new
material not found in the first complaint, it can be
entertained.
18. In this regard, learned advocate for respondent No.
2 -- the original complainant has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Surendra Singh Rathore (supra). In that decision, while
referring to several precedents on the issue of
maintainability of a second complaint, the Hon'ble Apex
Court ultimately held as under:
"9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or
presents a rival version of a set of facts, in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
reference to which an earlier FIR already stands
registered.
9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even
though they may arise from the same set of
circumstances.
9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues
reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a
larger conspiracy.
9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to
the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown
facts or circumstances.
9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are
similar or different."
19. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts
were that three persons, namely, Vipin Parihar, Devan
Shah, and Satya Narayan Saini lodged a complaint before
the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the respondent,
who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Bio Fuel
Authority, had demanded a bribe of Rs.15 lakh per month
for the sale of biofuel. Pursuant to this allegation, an FIR
came to be registered as C.R. No.123 of 2022 for offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act, the
alleged demand having occurred on 04.04.2022.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
20. A second FIR was lodged on 14.04.2022 for
incidents alleged to have occurred between 30.09.2021
and 12.04.2022, when one Mr. Shyam Prakash, a
constable with the ACB, brought to the notice of the DSP
that the respondent, among others, was indulging, in
taking bribes for granting licences to run Bio Fuel Pumps.
A middleman, namely, Nimba Ram and Ashish, had been
put under surveillance, and pursuant to that surveillance,
the second FIR came to be filed. The respondent
challenged both FIRs by filing an application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the
Hon'ble High Court seeking quashing of both FIRs. The
matter ultimately reached to the Hon'ble Apex Court.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the facts of the
two FIRs, as referred to in paragraph 3 of the judgment,
were distinct. The FIR registered earlier in point of time
related to a specific incident and specific act of bribe
demand, whereas the second FIR pertained to a larger
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
and wider issue of widespread corruption in the
department. Therefore, the Court held that the two FIRs
could not be said to relate to the same incident.
22. Turning to the facts of the present case, a
comparison of the First FIR lodged before the police and
the private complaint, clearly shows that both
proceedings were initiated by the same complainant, for
the same incident, against the same accused persons.
Both complaints relate to the same acts and same
allegations. Therefore, unlike the case before the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the two complaints herein are indeed in
regard to the same offence. It is well settled that a second
complaint is maintainable only when it discloses a distinct
offence, or when it brings to light some materially
different facts or a separate incident. Only in such
circumstances the second complaint can be entertained
even if it arises from the same transaction. In the present
case, however, the private complaint relates to the same
incident and same facts, and therefore, the second
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
complaint is not maintainable.
23. As discussed above, the learned Magistrate cannot
take cognizance twice for the same incident in two
different proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the
learned Magistrate in the private complaint is not
sustainable in law. It is further a settled principle of law
that, in the criminal case registered pursuant to First C.R.
No. 99 of 2004 (C.R. No. 482/2006), once witnesses have
been examined, the Court has full power under Section
216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add or alter the
charge at any stage before pronouncement of judgment.
The Court also has power under Section 319 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to arraign any other person as an
accused if evidence so warrants. Moreover, the charge-
sheet filed by the police already includes the same
witnesses, whose names have been shown in the private
complaint and their statements have already been
recorded.
24. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Magistrate are contrary to the settled principles of law,
and the order passed is perverse and illegal. Therefore,
interference is warranted and the order deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
25. In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal
Revision Application is hereby allowed qua the present
petitioner-accused. The order dated 29.03.2007 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi in
Criminal Inquiry No. 14 of 2006 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
26. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
STANCY GOMES
