Davinder Singh And Others vs State Of J&K
2023 Latest Caselaw 515 j&K

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                                            Reserved on   30.12.2022
                                            Pronounced on: 17 .03 .2023


                                                 CRM(M) No. 242/2019
                                                 CrlM No. 571/2019

Davinder Singh and others                        .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


                     Through: Mr. M.Y. Choudhary, Advocate vice
                              Mr. Ch. Mohd. Shabir, Advocate.
                Vs
State of J&K.                                                ..... Respondent(s)


                     Through: Mr. Suraj Singh, GA.

Coram:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Section 561-A

Cr.P.C ( now Section 482 Cr.P.C) is being invoked by the petitioners for

quashment of FIR No.79/2018 dated 16.11.2018 registered with Police Station,

Arnas, District Reasi for offences punishable under Sections 307, 382, 353, 323,

147 RPC.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are poor labourers engaged by

the Venser Construction Company Limited at Northern Railway Tunnel Project

T-13 Dugga, District Reasi and are protected under Minimum Wages Act,

Workmen Compensation Act, Equal Remuneration Act, Industrial Disputes Act

besides being governed by the Trade Union Act.

2 CRM(M) 242/2019

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two FIRs have been

registered in respect of the same occurrence, therefore, the impugned FIR is

required to be quashed as two FIRs cannot be registered with the same

occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Surinder Kaushik and ors. Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2013 (5) SCC 148.

5. Status report has been filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that

during investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses

under Section 161 Cr.P.C and also got recorded the statements of SI Mohd Qasim

and SPO Bashir Ahmed before the Court of learned Munsiff, JMIC, Mahore

under Section 164-A Cr.P.C and received the copies of statements. During

investigation, the investigating officer received the medical reports of two injured

policemen in which the medical officer has reported that the SgCt Malook Singh

has received critical injury with blunt object, as such, offence under Section 333

was added in the FIR. It has been further stated that on the basis of statements

and evidence collected during the course of investigation, prima facie it was

established that the accused/petitioners have committed the offence under

Sections 307 382, 353 /332/ 333 /336, 147, 201 RPC. It is further stated that

accused/petitioners were arrested and subsequently they were bailed out by the

Court below.

6. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is not applicable in the present case. It is true that there cannot be two

FIRs with regard to the same occurrence, but when the occurrences are different, 3 CRM(M) 242/2019

may be they have taken place simultaneously one after another, there can be two

FIRs.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

file.

8. In the instant case, FIR No. 79 of 2018 was registered with Police

Station, Dansal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 382,

353, 323, 147 RPC alleging therein that the petitioners/accused mentioned in the

FIR entered in the office of Venser Construction Company Ltd at 9.30 a.m and

attacked one of their staff member, namely, Rohit Kumar who got injured and

they also damaged the Scorpio vehicle and computer of the office whereas,

another case FIR No. 79 of 2018 was lodged against the petitioners for

commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 147, 323, 506 and 427

RPC alleging therein that on 16.11.2018 at 11.30 a. m when the police reached the

spot with regard to the aforesaid occurrence which had taken place,

accused/petitioners mentioned in the FIR attacked the police party, in which one

SgCt Malook Singh received critical injury. This, in no way, can be said to be the

part of the same occurrence. These are the two different occurrences, which had

taken place at two different places.

9. It will be appropriate and advantageous herein to refer to a judgment

of the Supreme Court in case titled Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004)13 SCC

292, wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that in a case if allegations

made in two complaints are different in versions in respect of same incident, not

required to be interfered with the 2nd FIR and investigation would be carried

under both of them by the same investigating agency. Thus filing of FIR giving a 4 CRM(M) 242/2019

counter claim in respect of the same incident having different version of the event

is permissible in law.

10. In another case titled Babubhai v. State of Gujrat : (2010)12 SCC

254, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court considered the issue of lodging of 2nd FIR. In

this case, two communities for same issue fought against each other which

resulted in death of some persons, led to lodging of two FIRs. The Hon‟ble

Supreme Court has considered the earlier judgments and held if an FIR is lodged

against accused persons for an incident, after some time, a subsequent FIR is

lodged, for the same transaction of facts is not permissible but counter claim, a

fact with different version in lodging of two FIRs is permissible. It is relevant to

quote Para-20 of the said judgment:

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC."

11. Law with regard to quashing of FIR/complaint is well settled. This

can only be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to otherwise

secure the ends of justice. The expressions 'ends of justice' and 'to prevent abuse

of process of any court' are intended to work out either when an innocent person 5 CRM(M) 242/2019

is unjustifiably subjected to an undeserving prosecution or if an ex-facie all

merited prosecution is throttled at the threshold without allowing the material in

support of it.

12. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Supreme Court

in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779,

has held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, to quash the FIR, is to be exercised in a very sparing

manner as is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate.

Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act

according to whim or caprice. Such power has to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Inherent powers in a matter of

quashing FIR have to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such

exercise is justifying by the test specifically laid down in provision itself. Power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is a very wide, but conferment of wide power requires

the Court to be more conscious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the

Court.

13. In the instant case, it is seen in regard to the incident which took

place on 16.11.2018, the Manager- Venser Construction Company Ltd and the

Police have lodged separate complaints giving different versions, even the

offences which are stated to have been committed, and for which the two FIRs

were registered in these respective cases were different and distinct. These were

two different FIRs relatable to different occurrences which are alleged to have

occurred at different points of time. Thus, lodging of the subsequent FIR was not

a second FIR for the same occurrence as stated in the instant petition as both cases

are completely distinct and different.

6 CRM(M) 242/2019

14. Perusal of the record further tends to show that the averments made

in the complaint/FIR prima facie revel the commission of cognizable offences, at

this stage, it would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts

that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to

abuse of process of law. Therefore, looking to the nature of offences attributed to

the petitioners, it is not a fit case wherein inherent powers can be exercised by this

Court for quashing the FIR.

15. The investigation in the instant case has been completed, the

allegations leveled in the complaint/FIR regarding the commission of the alleged

offence are required to be proved during the trial by adducing the evidence and the

grounds taken by the petitioners in the instant case can well be taken in defence

before the Court below.

16. In view of the above, I do not see any case having been made out by

the petitioners for quashing the impugned FIR.

17. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE

Jammu 17.03.2023 Bir* Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No