High Court · 2025

Mr. Part h Tam t a, Advocat e, holding brief of Mr. Bhuw an Bhat t , Advocat e for t he applicant . Mr. Deepak Bisht , Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. t hem Fact s of t he case, in a nut shell, are 2. t hat respondent no.2- Sm t . Chandrak ant a m oved a com plaint befor e Police St at ion Bhagwanpur, Dist rict Haridwar against t he applicant and four ot her s for lodging an t he offences F.I .R. against punishable under Sect ion 354, 323, 147, 504, 506 I .P.C. and Sect ion 3( 1) ( 10) of S.C./ S.T. Act . Aft er invest igat ion, t he Police subm it t ed t he Final Report . I n t he Final Report , it is st at ed t hat t here is a suit pending bet ween t he respondent no.2 and t he applicant in t he Court of Consolidat ion Officer and t hat t he r espondent no.2 hav e no m edical evidence r egarding t he inj uries and since bot h t o Scheduled Cast e com m unit y, t her efore, t he offences punishable under Sect ion 3( 1) ( 10) of S.C./ S.T. Act are not applicable t o t he present case. The said Final Report was accept ed by t he Magist rat e on 04.09.2013. Against t he Final Report , r espondent no.2 filed a Prot est Pet it ion on 23.12.2013. The sam e was r ej ect ed vide or der dat ed 17.05.2014. Aggrieved by t he said order, respondent no.2 preferred a Revision, w hich t oo was 06.08.2014. Respondent no.2 did not furt her challenge t he sur prisingly, respondent no.2 pr eferred a com plaint t he under Sect ion 156( 3) Cr.P.C. before Magist rat e on t he sam e fact s, which were m ent ioned in t he com plaint , pur suant t o t he part ies belong dism issed inst ead and, t he r espondent no.2, t ook cognizance and which F.I .R. was lodged. Aft er recording t he t he st at em ent of issued Magist rat e sum m ons t o t he applicant vide order dat ed 30.05.2015. t he or der dat ed 30.05.2015, applicant preferr ed Revision. t he applicant was The Revision t he Revisional Court on dism issed by feeling aggriev ed, 08.03.2017. t his crim inal m isc. applicant has applicat ion. Thus, Against filed by inv est igat ion,

3. t he applicant Lear ned counsel t he subm it s t hat , aft er I nvest igat ing Officer did not find any subst ance in t he allegat ions lev elled against t he applicant and have subm it t ed t he Final Report and respondent no.2 hav e filed a Prot est Pet it ion challenging t he Final Report , which t oo was dism issed; t hat t he Revision Pet it ion filed by respondent no.2 has also been dism issed; t hat , once t he proceedings are t aken t o t he logical end, t hen a part y is not perm it t ed t o r aise t he issue by agit at ing it in a different forum on t he self sam e fact s.

4. Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of “ T.T. Ant ony Vs. St at e of Kerala & ot hers” , r eport ed in ( 2001) 6 SCC 181, while dealing wit h an ident ical issue, has held as under : “ 2 7 . A j ust balance bet ween t he fundam ent al r ight s of t he cit izens under Art icles 19 and 21 of t he Const it ut ion and t he expansive power of t he police t o invest igat e a cognizable offence has t o be st ruck by t he court . There cannot be any cont roversy t hat sub- sect ion ( 8) of Sect ion 173 Cr PC em powers t he police t o m ake furt her invest igat ion, obt ain furt her evidence ( bot h oral and docum ent ary) and forward t he Magist rat e. report s a I n Narang case [ ( 1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC ( Cri) 479] it was, however, observed t hat it would be appropriat e t o conduct furt her invest igat ion wit h t he perm ission of t he court . However, t he sweeping power of invest igat ion does not warrant subj ect ing a report or furt her t o cit izen each t im e t o fresh invest igat ion by t he police in respect of t he sam e incident , giving r ise t o one or m ore cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FI Rs whet her before or aft er filing t he final report under Sect ion 173( 2) CrPC. I t would clear ly be beyond t he purview of Sect ions 154 and 156 Cr PC, nay, a case of abuse of t he st at ut ory power of invest igat ion in a given case. I n our view a case of fresh invest igat ion based on t he second or successive FI Rs, not being a count er- case, filed in connect ion wit h t he sam e or connect ed cognizable offence alleged t o have been com m it t ed in t he course of t he sam e t ransact ion and in r espect of which pursuant t o t he first FI R eit her invest igat ion is under way or final report under Sect ion 173( 2) has been forwarded t o t he Magist rat e, m ay be a fit case for exercise of power under Sect ion 482 CrPC or under Art icles 226/ 227 of t he Const it ut ion.” Sim ilarly, t he case of “ St at e of 5. Raj ast han Vs. Surendra Singh Rat hore” , report ed in 2025 SCC On Line SC 358, Hon’ble Suprem e Court proceeded t o hold as under: “ 1 0 . As recorded supra, t he High Court found t hat t he t wo FI Rs were indeed in regard t o t he sam e offence and, t herefore, not m aint ainable, however, in our view t he scope of t he t wo FI Rs, as already referred t o in para 3 supra, are dist inct . The FI R prior in point of t im e refers t o a part icular incident and t he act ion t aken t herein is lim it ed. The second FI R pert ains issue of w idespread larger t he concerned depart m ent and, corrupt ion t herefore, is m uch larger in it s scope t han t he previous FI R.” t he t o Law is w ell set t led.

6. I t does not prohibit filing or ent ert aining of t he second com plaint even on t he sam e fact s, provided t he earlier com plaint has been decided on t he basis of insufficient m at erial or t he order has been passed wit hout underst anding t he nat ur e of t he com plaint or t he com plet e fact s could not be placed before t he Court or t o know wher e fir st t he cert ain t he t ilt ed com plaint which could have t he com plainant cam e fact s aft er disposal of in his balance favour. How ever, second com plaint would not be m aint ainable t he earlier com plaint has been wher ein disposed of on full considerat ion of t he case of t he com plainant on m erit . I n t he case in hand, anot her com plaint on t he self sam e fact s was r egist er ed by t he respondent no.2 and since t he first com plaint regist ered by respondent no.2 was t aken t o it s logical end, hence, t he second com plaint for t he sam e could not have been regist ered. incident

7. I n view of t he dict um of t he Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he aforesaid cases, t his Court has no hesit at ion in quashing t he ent ire proceedings of t he com plaint case regist ered against t he applicant . passed learned Accordingly, Judge, Haridwar

8. crim inal m isc. t he applicat ion is allowed and t he order dat ed 5t h 08.03.2017 Addit ional Dist rict Crim inal Revision No.409 of 2015 as w ell as sum m oning order dat ed 30.05.2015 issued learned Addit ional Judicial Magist rat e, Roorkee is set aside. The ent ir e proceedings of Com plaint Case No. 3809 of 2014, pending in t he Court of learned Addit ional Judicial Magist rat e, Dist rict Haridwar ar e her eby quashed. Roorkee, ( A l o k M a h r a , J.) 18.08.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510 9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL