Ramavtar Son Of Shri Lekhraj vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1827 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9885/2022

Ramavtar Son Of Shri Lekhraj, Resident Of Sundrawali, Police
Station Nagar, District Bharatpur (Raj).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.     Hansram, Head Constable No. 1842, Police Station Nagar,
       District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deshraj Gosingha, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order 08/02/2023

1. Some unknown persons stolen away the Motor Cycle of the

informant bearing registration No. RJ-14-KC-5783.

2. For the incident aforesaid, the FIR No.0293/2022 dated

24.03.2022 was registered with Kotwali Police Station, District-

Alwar for offence under Section 379 CPC.

3. The Motor Cycle was recovered from the possession of one

Amar Singh S/o Fateh Singh, who was using the vehicle on false

registration number. On recovery of the Motor Cycle, FIR

No.0371/2022 dated 13.07.2022 was registered with Nagar Police

Station, District-Bharatpur for offences under Sections 420, 379,

411, 473, 482 and 120-B IPC.

4. Prayer is for quashing of the FIR No.0371/2022 on the

ground that this is second FIR for the same cause.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-9885/2022]

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of

Kerala & Ors. reported in Cr.L.R. [SC] 2001 633.

6. The law laid down in T.T. Antony case is not applicable in the

present facts and circumstances of this case for the reason that in

the case on hand two different offences were allegedly committed

at two different places on two different dates, for which two

separate FIRs were registered at different Police Stations.

7. As noticed above, one of the FIRs relates to theft of Motor

Cycle by unknown person and the impugned FIR relates to

recovery of the said Motor Cycle (stolen property) found in

possession of the named person.

8. I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel

for the petitioner because two distinct offences are there. One

relates to theft of Motor Cycle and another relates to recovery of

stolen property. Therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed.

9. The petitioner would be at liberty to move at the appropriate

stage for analogous trial of the two FIRs, if circumstance so

requires.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands

dismissed.

11. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

Sunita/19

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)