M.L. Badhani v. Laxmi

Srinagar, FIR No. 2205 of 2010 dated

10.11.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC was lodged against one Laxmi 2 Chand at Police Station Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal (“the First FIR”). According to this FIR, Laxmi Chand applied in the Electricity Department for his appointment, in the year 1987 and the then Executive Engineer i.e. the petitioner offered him an appointment letter, but, Laxmi Chand had placed forged permanent resident certificate along with his application for appointment. The FIR records that, in fact, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pratapnagar, Tehri Garhwal had informed that Laxmi Chand is not the permanent resident of that district. (ii) On the First FIR, the Investigating Officer submitted the Final Report No. 2 of 2011. In the Final Report, he records that the appointment Laxmi Chand was subsequently cancelled, but he was reinstated by an order of the Labour Court; the decision of the Labour Court was challenged before the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reinstatement was upheld. (iii) On this Final Report, a protest petition was filed, which was treated as a complaint and the complaint being Criminal Complaint Case No. 285 of 2012, M.L. Badhani v. Laxmi 3 Chand, was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) on 07.03.2016 by the Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, district Pauri Garhwal. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2014, M.L. Badhani v. Laxmi Chand and another, before the court of District & Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal (“the revision”), but the revision was also dismissed. (iv) After dismissal of the revision, the action pursuant to the First FIR came to a close. (v) Again, the respondent no. 3 Shanti Prasad Bhatt lodged FIR No. 3 of 2013 dated

01.01.2013 under Sections 409, 477-A IPC against the petitioner and one Kripa Ram Kashyap, at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun (“the Second FIR”). The allegation in the Second FIR was with regard illegal appointment of Laxmi Chand, because according to the Second FIR, the appointment of Laxmi Chand was secured by placing forged permanent resident certificate. In the Second FIR, after investigation Charge Sheet No. 16 of 2013 was submitted against the petitioner and another for the offence Section 477A IPC a 4 supplementary Charge Sheet No. 16A of 2023 was submitted under Section 409 IPC, on which cognizance was taken on

01.09.2014, which is the basis of the case. It is impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on the First FIR, investigation had completed and Final Report was submitted, which was accepted; protest petition against the Final Report was filed, which was treated as a complaint, which was subsequently rejected by order dated 07.03.2016; against the order dated 07.03.2016, the revision was filed, which was also rejected. It is argued that based on the same facts, second FIR cannot be lodged; therefore, the charge sheets dated 19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014, the summoning order dated 01.09.2014 and the entire proceedings of the Case, which is based on the Second FIR are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Counsel for the State as well as the respondent no. 3 does not dispute the lodging of the First FIR, its investigation and submission of the Final Report in the First FIR. It is also admitted by the learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the Final Report was challenged in a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint, which was dismissed on

07.03.2016. It is also admitted that against the dismissal of the complaint, the revision was filed, which was also dismissed on

09.11.2016. Learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 admitted that on the same facts second FIR has lodged. Both the learned Counsel submit instant 5 proceedings, in view of the settled law could not have been initiated; therefore, they do not object to the present petition.

6. Successive FIR is not permissible, though further investigation is permissible under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. This aspect has been widely considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others1, where in para 19 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC.”

7. Further in para 27 of the judgment in the case of T.T. Antony (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is 1 (2001) 6 SCC 181 6 under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.” Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed.......”

8. Similar are the facts in the instant case. Based on the First FIR, Final Report was submitted, against which a protest petition was filed and treated as a complaint. The complaint was dismissed, which was unsuccessfully challenged in the revision. That chapter has been closed. On the same facts, second FIR could not have been filed, based on which the charge sheets dated 19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014 was submitted and impugned summoning order has been passed.

9. Therefore, while quashing the charge sheets dated

19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014 and setting aside the summoning order dated 01.09.2014 and the entire proceedings of the case, this Court is of the view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

10. The petition is allowed.

11. The charge sheets dated 19.02.2013 and 06.08.2014, the summoning order dated 01.09.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2636 of 2014, State v. Kripa Ram Kashyap and another, 7 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Avneet/ (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

17.07.2025