Ramkishan v. Kartar Singh Panwar, Asi

1. State of Rajasthan, through PP Versus ----Accused-Petitioner ----Respondent

2. Kartar Singh Panwar, Asi, R/o Kalaran Ka Pura, Hindaun City, Hindaun Sadar, District Karauli (Rajasthan) ----Complainant/Respondent connected with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5250/2025

Ramkishan S/o Shri Battan Gurjar, R/o Anah Gate, Police Sta- tion Sewar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Accused/Petitioner

1. State of Rajasthan, through PP Versus

2. Rambabu Asi, R/o Abhora, Kumher, District Bharatpur, (Rajasthan) ----Complainant/Respondents ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kapil Gupta with Mr.Chitransh Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/10/2025

Since the common question of facts are involved in these petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel appearing on behalf [2025:RJ-JP:43511] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5246/2025] of rival sides, arguments have been heard together and both these petitions are decided by this common order.

By way of filing filing S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5246/2025, a challenge has been led to the F.I.R. No.424/2025 registered with Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur under Sections 19 and 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, while in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5250/2025, a challenge has been led to the F.I.R. No.425/2025 registered with Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur under Sections 19, 54 and 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two different FIRs with regard to the same offence and incident, alleged to have been occurred on 02.10.2025, have been registered with the Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 19, 54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. Counsel submits that the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is two kilometers. It is next to impossible that two different incidents occurred at the same point of time on 02.08.2025, that too within a little margin of hardly half an hour. Counsel submits that the F.I.R. No.424/2025 was registered on 03.08.2025 for the alleged incident that occurred on 02.08.2025 in between 10:15 PM till 11:50 PM, while the F.I.R. pertaining to other incident, i.e., F.I.R. No.425/2025 was registered on 03.08.2025 for the alleged incident that occurred at 11:36 PM and in the intervening night of

02.08.2025 and 03.08.2025, i.e., 02:40 AM. Counsel submits that for the single incident two different FIRs were registered, which is not tenable in terms of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex [2025:RJ-JP:43511] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5246/2025] Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2001 6 SCC 181 hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that the place of occurrence of both the incidents is altogether different in F.I.R. No.424/2025, the incident has occurred at the shop and house of the petitioner, where illicit country liquour was recovered and ceased by the Police while in F.I.R. No.425/2025 illicit country liquour has been recovered from the vehicle Safari Car lying in the Bada of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, two different FIRs with regard to two different incidents and offences have been registered, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and these petitions are liable to be rejected.

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

Perusal of the contents of both FIRs reveals that the investigation was carried out by the investigating agency of Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur in pursuance of secret information received by them with regard to the sale of illicit liquour.

It appears that within a short span of half an hour, two different FIRs have been registered and recovery of illicit liquour has been effected from both the places. It appears that the incident has occurred in a series for which two different FIRs have been registered. In the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of these petitions by issuing directions to the Investigating Officer to [2025:RJ-JP:43511] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5246/2025] consolidate both the F.I.R. Nos.424/2025 & 425/2025 and conduct one investigation and in case, he comes to the conclusion that two different incidents have occurred at two different places, the result of the investigation be submitted accordingly.

With the aforesaid observations, these petitions stand disposed of. Stay application(s) and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma /15-16 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J