Rajendra Singh v. Vinod Singh and Others) whereby, the application filed by the r
Case Details
1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35385 A.F.R. Reserved Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1965 of 2024 Revisionist :- Rajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar Singh,Srijan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Chaturvedi Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Srijan Pandey and Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsels appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging therein, the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 71 of 2024 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Vinod Singh and Others) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register the First Information Report, had been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that brother of the revisionist i.e. Virendra Singh and his wife were found dead in their house in the morning of 07.11.2023. The revisionist informed the police of the Police Station Pailani, District Banda that his sister, 2 Krishna Devi, his cousin, Vinod Singh and one Sanjay Singh have administered poison to his brother and wife of his brother, which had resulted into their death. The police did not register the First Information Report, however the police sent the dead- bodies for post-mortem. In the post-mortem report, it is mentioned that the cause of death could not be ascertained and therefore viscera had been preserved. 4. Since the police did not register the First Information Report, the revisionist went to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. but he was ousted from the police station by using force. Thereafter, the revisionist appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Banda on 21.12.2023 and he also sent his application for lodging F.I.R. to the Superintendent of Police, Banda through registered post on 22.12.2023. 5. Since, in-spite of the aforesaid efforts made by the revisionist, the police did not register F.I.R., he filed an application on 26.02.2024 in the court of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda. In the said application, the revisionist had stated that his brother, Virendra Singh was sanctioned a house under Pradhan Mantri Housing Scheme and an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was credited in his account. The sister of the revisionist i.e. Krishna Devi, cousin of the revisionist i.e. Vinod Singh and Pradhan Pratinidhi, Sanjay Singh were pressurizing Virendra Singh to hand-over half-land of the house and Rs. 60,000/- from the amount received under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Scheme to them. In the application, it was further stated that the aforesaid Krishna Devi, Vinod Singh and Sanjay Singh extended threat to Virendra Singh to hand over the land and money to them within five to six days otherwise they will kill him. In the application, it had further 2 3 been stated that the aforesaid Krishna Devi, Vinod Singh and Sanjay Singh on 6.11.2023, in the night, administered poison to Virendra Singh and his wife and killed them. The revisionist, through his application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., prayed that a direction be issued commanding the police station concerned to register an F.I.R. in the matter and take adequate penal proceedings against Vinod Singh, Krishna Devi and Sanjay Singh. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on the aforesaid application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. sought a report from the police station concerned. The Station House Officer, Police Station Pailani, District Banda submitted a report wherein, it was stated that after post-mortem of the dead- bodies, their viscera have been preserved and have been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) for the investigation. The other allegations levelled in the application were not found proved by the police. 7. Learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, had rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 11.03.2024. The revisionist
Facts
challenged the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2024 by filing the instant criminal revision before this Court on 14.04.2024. The instant revision was entertained by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2024 and notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. to Vinod Singh thereafter, an application for correction in the order dated 29.04.2024 was filed by the revisionist and the said application was registered as Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 1 of 2024. This Court allowed the correction application vide order dated 02.05.2024 and thereby, in place of 3 4 notice to Opposite Party No. 2, notices to Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 were issued. As per the service report available in the order- sheet of this revision, notice of this revision to Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24812 of 2019 (Deokali Vs. State of U.P. and 58 Others) and has submitted that in the said judgements, it had categorically been held that second F.I.R., regarding same incident, can be registered if the informants are different persons, the versions of the incident in both the cases are different and the persons accused for the crime are different. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the peculiar facts of the case, in categorical terms, demonstrate that the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Krishna Devi is nothing but a tactic to anyhow save her from the punishment of the offence in question, as it was the revisionist who on the date of incident itself started the proceedings for lodging of the F.I.R. and even he immediately filed application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that this Court may allow this revision and set- aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 with a direction to learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda to reconsider the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., afresh and issue direction to the police station concerned to register the F.I.R. 18. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 has argued that once an F.I.R. had been registered in respect of one incident, the second F.I.R. for 8 9 the same incident cannot be registered. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate has relied on the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and the judgement rendered in the case of Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8. 19. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 has also submitted that the revisionist himself, with the help of few other persons, had administered poison to Virendra Singh and his wife and therefore, just to save himself, he is trying to anyhow get his First Information Report lodged. He has further submitted that there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 therefore, the instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 20. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents on record of this criminal revision. 21. Before proceeding to decide the legal issues raised in this criminal revision, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of certain facts of the case which are as under: 22. The Virendra Singh and his wife were found dead in their home in the morning of 7.11.2023. The revisionist on the same day approached to the concerned police station for lodging of the F.I.R. against Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 but the police ousted him from the police station. The revisionist, immediately on 21.12.2023 appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Banda and sent an application on 22.12.2023 through registered post for lodging of the F.I.R. Since the F.I.R. was not registered by the 9 10 police, the revisionist immediately filed an application on 26.02.2024 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The application filed by the revisionist, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had been rejected vide order dated 11.03.2024. The revisionist challenged the order dated 11.03.2024 by filing the instant Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2024 which was entertained by this Court and notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2 vide order dated 29.04.2024. The notice of this revision was served upon Opposite Party No. 2 on 07.05.2024. 23. Till service of notice of this revision upon Opposite Party No. 2, there was absolute silence on the part of Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 and after service of notice of this revision upon Opposite Party No. 2, the Opposite Party No. 3 filed an application on 10.05.2024 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda for lodging of an F.I.R. against the revisionist and three other persons for the same incident. The Opposite Party No. 3 did not disclose that the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. had already been rejected. Even otherwise, Opposite Party No. 3, in her application filed on 10.05.2024, did not disclose as to on what date, she actually approached to the concerned police station for lodging of the F.I.R. and in the application, it has been stated that she has given an application on 16.04.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Banda for lodging of the F.I.R. i.e. after about five months from the date of incident. 24. The facts noted hereinabove, in categorical terms, demonstrate that Opposite Party No. 3 remained silent for about five months and when the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected and the criminal revision against the rejection order was entertained by this Court, 10 11 the Opposite Party No. 3 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the said application had been allowed and consequently an F.I.R. had been registered bearing F.I.R. No. 0150 of 2024 in Police Station Pailani, District Banda. 25. This Court does not have any occasion to make any comment on the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda whereby, the application filed by Opposite Party No. 3 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. had been allowed and the F.I.R. had been registered but the aforesaid facts, prima-facie demonstrate that everything has not been done in accordance with law. 26. Now this Court proceeds to consider the issue, as to whether the contents of the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The relevant paragraphs of the application, filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., are extracted as under: “2. यह कि(cid:8) प्रार्थी(cid:12)/वादी (cid:8)े बडे भाई बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह पुत्र शि(cid:31)वनरायन सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)े नाम प्रधान मंत्री आवा(cid:26) योजना (cid:8)े तहत (cid:8)ालोनी बनवाने हेतु ए(cid:8) लाख बी(cid:26) हजार रूपये किमला र्थीा। प्रार्थी(cid:12) (cid:8)े परिरवारिर(cid:8) चचेरा भाई किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह और मेरी (cid:26)गी बहन (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी ने प्रधान प्रतितकिनतिध (cid:26)ंजय सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)े (cid:8)हने पर गुण्डई व दबंगई (cid:8)े दम पर अनग7ल तरी(cid:8)े (cid:26)े (cid:8)ालोनी (cid:8)ी जमीन पर आधा किहस्(cid:26)ा बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:26)े माँग रहे र्थीे। 3. यह कि(cid:8) प्रार्थी(cid:12)/ वादी (cid:8)े बडे भाई बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:26)े परिरवारिर(cid:8) चचेरा भाई किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह और (cid:26)गी बहन (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी व प्रधान प्रतितकिनतिध (cid:26)ंजय सिं(cid:26)ह ने बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)ो प्रधानमंत्री आवा(cid:26) (cid:8)ा किमला आधा रूपया मु० 60,000/- उक्त तीनों लोग मांग रहे र्थीे, लेकि(cid:8)न बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह ने (cid:8)ालोनी (cid:8)ी जमीन (cid:8)ा आधा किहस्(cid:26)ा व प्रधानमंत्री आवा(cid:26) (cid:8)ा किमला आधा रूपया देने (cid:26)े इन्(cid:8)ार (cid:8)र किदया। 4. यह कि(cid:8) तभी किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)ी बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)ी घरौनी आबादी (cid:8)ी जमीन गाटा (cid:26)ंख्या 97 में प्रधान प्रतितकिनतिध (cid:26)ंजय सिं(cid:26)ह जो रिरस्ते में किबनोद सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)ा (cid:26)गा भनेज दामाद ने अनग7ल (गलत) तरी(cid:8)े (cid:26)े नाम चढवा किदया। लेकि(cid:8)न जान(cid:8)ारी होने पर बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह ने एतराज कि(cid:8)या, जिज(cid:26)(cid:8)ा प्रार्थी7ना पत्र (cid:26)ार्थी में (cid:26)ंलग्न है। 5. यह कि(cid:8) उक्त तीनो किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह और (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी व (cid:26)ंजय सिं(cid:26)ह ने बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:26)े (cid:8)हा कि(cid:8) अभी 5-6 किदन (cid:8)ा (cid:26)मय है, तुम्हारे पा(cid:26) (cid:8)ालोनी (cid:8)ी आधी जमीन व (cid:8)ालोनी बनाने हेतु किमला आधा 60 हजार रूपया हमें दे दो नहीं तो तुम्हें हम लोग जान (cid:26)े मार देंगे। 11 12 6. यह कि(cid:8) उक्त तीनों ( किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह और (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी व प्रधान प्रतितकिनतिध (cid:26)ंजय सिं(cid:26)ह) ने योजना बना(cid:8)र योजनाबद्ध तरी(cid:8)े (cid:26)े मुझ प्रार्थी(cid:12) (cid:8)े बडे भाई बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह व भाभी (cid:31)ान्ती देवी पत्नी बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह किनवा(cid:26)ी ग्राम ल(cid:26)डा र्थीाना पैलानी जनपद बाँदा (cid:8)ो किदनां(cid:8) 06.11.2023 (cid:8)ी रात में जहर खिखला(cid:8)र मार किदया है, जिजन(cid:8)े पोस्टमाट7म (cid:8)ी रिरपोट7 (cid:26)ार्थी में (cid:26)ंलग्न है। 7. यह कि(cid:8) वादी (cid:8)े बडे भाई बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह ने यह बाते (cid:8)रने (cid:8)े पूव7 किदनां(cid:8) 02.11.2023 (cid:8)े पहले बताया र्थीा, इ(cid:26)खिलये प्रार्थी(cid:12) (cid:8)ो पूण7 किवश्वा(cid:26) हो गया है कि(cid:8) इन्होने ने ही जहर खिखला(cid:8)र प्रार्थी(cid:12) (cid:8)े बडे भाई बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)ो मार किदया। 8. यह कि(cid:8) प्रार्थी(cid:12)/ वादी (cid:8)ो किदनां(cid:8) 07.11.2023 (cid:8)ो (cid:26)ुबह लगभग 6 बजे हमारी बहन (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी ने अपने बचने (cid:8)े खिलये कि(cid:8) मैं न फं(cid:26)ू इ(cid:26)खिलये मेरे घर आ(cid:8)र बताया कि(cid:8) भैया बीरेन्द्र व भाभी (cid:31)ान्ती देवी खत्म हो गये है। प्रार्थी(cid:12) मौ(cid:8)े पर गया और देखा तो दोनों खत्म हो चु(cid:8)े र्थीे। पोस्टमाट7म रिरपोट7 किब(cid:26)रा किप्रजव7 (cid:8)ी जांच हेतु रिरपोट7 भेजी जा चु(cid:8)ी है। 9. यह कि(cid:8) प्रार्थी(cid:12)/वादी (cid:8)ी बहन (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी और किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह ने मृत(cid:8) बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)ा (cid:8)ालोनी बनवाने हेतु घर में रखा रूपया 35000/- व चाँदी (cid:8)ी पायल ए(cid:8) जोडी वजन लगभग 100 ग्राम और (cid:8)ान (cid:8)े (cid:26)ुई धागा (cid:26)ोने (cid:8)े वजन लगभग 5 ग्राम व बीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह व उ(cid:26)(cid:8)ी पत्नी (cid:8)े मोबाइल व बैं(cid:8) (cid:8)ी पा(cid:26) बु(cid:8) और आधार (cid:8)ाड7 व अन्य (cid:8)ागजात चोरी (cid:8)र लूट (cid:8)र ले गये। 10. यह कि(cid:8) मुझ प्रार्थी(cid:12)/ वादी (cid:8)ो उक्त तीनों लोगो ने (किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह और (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी व प्रधान प्रतितकिनतिध (cid:26)ंजय सिं(cid:26)ह धम(cid:8)ी किदया है कि(cid:8) जै(cid:26)े उन दोनों (cid:8)ो जहर खिखला(cid:8)र मार किदया है, उ(cid:26)ी तरह तुम्हे भी जहर खिखला(cid:8)र जान (cid:26)े मार देंगे अगर तुमने हमारे खिखलाफ (cid:8)ानूनी (cid:8)ाय7वाही कि(cid:8)या, क्योंकि(cid:8) प्रधान प्रतितकिनतिध र्थीाने (cid:26)े ले(cid:8)र उच्चातिध(cid:8)ारिरयों व राजनीतित में प(cid:8)ड बनाये हुये है। तभी मौ(cid:8)े पर खडे बृजकिवला(cid:31) व मनमोहन सिं(cid:26)ह पुत्रगण (cid:26)ुरजपाल सिं(cid:26)ह व गांव व पडो(cid:26) (cid:8)े तमाम व्यकिक्तयों ने उक्त लोगो (cid:26)े किवरोध (cid:8)रते हुए (cid:8)हा कि(cid:8) तुम लोग गलत (cid:8)र रहे हो।" 27. The aforesaid contents of the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. categorically demonstrate commission of the cognizable offence and the motive for Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 to kill Virendra Singh and his wife by administering them poison. The revisionist, in Paragraph No. 10 of his application, had categorically stated that Vinod Singh, Krishna Devi and Sanjay Singh have extended threat to him by saying that they will kill him by administering poison as they have done with Virendra Singh and his wife. Once this Court finds that the story of commission of the cognizable offence is there in the application along with motive and further there is an affirmative claim of the applicant that the accused have committed the cognizable offence, there cannot be any doubt that the contents of the application, filed under Section 12 13 156(3) Cr.P.C., disclose commission of the cognizable offence. Learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banda on the application, filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., called for a police report and the following police report was submitted by the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Pailani, District Banda: "(cid:26)ादर किनवेदन है आवेद(cid:8) श्री राजेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह पुत्र शि(cid:31)वनारायन सिं(cid:26)ह किन० ल(cid:26)डा र्थीाना पैलानी जनपद बांदा (cid:8)े प्रा०पत्र (cid:8)ी जांच मुझ उ०किन० द्वारा (cid:8)ी गयी तो वाक्यात इ(cid:26) प्र(cid:8)ार पाये गये कि(cid:8) आवेद(cid:8) राजेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह उपरोक्त (cid:8)ा भाई वीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह व भाभी (cid:31)ान्तिन्त देवी (cid:8)ो प्रधानमंत्री आवा(cid:26) योजना (cid:8)े अन्तग7त आवा(cid:26) लगभग 6 माह पूव7 किमला र्थीा, जिज(cid:26)(cid:8)ी दो कि(cid:8)स्त क्रम(cid:31)ः 40 हजार, 70 हजार रूपये प्राप्त हो चु(cid:8)ा है। (cid:8)ालोनी (cid:8)ा दीवाल चारो तरफ खडी है। अभी छर्थी नहीं पडी है (cid:31)ेष 10 हजार रूपये म(cid:8)ान (cid:8)म्पलीट होने (cid:8)े पश्चात किमलता है। मात्र वही धन (cid:31)ेष है। आवा(cid:26) (cid:8)ा प्राप्त धन में (cid:26)े आधा पै(cid:26)ा ग्राम प्रधान प्रतितकिनतिध व किवनोद सिं(cid:26)ह (cid:8)े द्वारा माँगने (cid:8)ी बात (cid:8)ी जाँच (cid:26)े पुकिn नहीं हुई तर्थीा जेवर पै(cid:26)ा म(cid:8)ान (cid:26)े लेने व चुराने (cid:8)ी बात अ(cid:26)त्य है क्योंकि(cid:8) घटना (cid:8)े तत्(cid:8)ाल बाद स्र्थीानीय पुखिल(cid:26) किदनां(cid:8) 07.11.2023 (cid:8)ो पंचायतनामा (cid:8)ी (cid:8)ाय7वाही हेतु मौ(cid:8)े पर जा(cid:8)र पंचायतनामा (cid:8)ी (cid:8)ाय7वाही (cid:8)ी गयी र्थीी बाद पंचायतनामा, पोस्टमाट7म होने (cid:8)े उपरान्त दोनो मृत(cid:8)ो (cid:8)ी पीएम रिरपोट7 में किब(cid:26)रा किप्रजव7 कि(cid:8)या गया है। पंचायतनामा (cid:8)ी (cid:8)ाय7वाही मुझ उ०किन० द्वारा ही (cid:8)ी गयी र्थीी। घटनास्र्थील (cid:8)ा किनरीक्षण (cid:26)े पाया गया कि(cid:8) खुले खण्डहर (cid:8)च्चा म(cid:8)ान (cid:8)े अन्दर प्लान्तिस्ट(cid:8) पन्नी लगी हुई र्थीी जिज(cid:26)(cid:8)े अन्दर दोनों मृत(cid:8)ों (cid:8)ा (cid:31)व पडा र्थीा मौ(cid:8)े (cid:8)ी जांच पडताल एवं किनरीक्षण (cid:26)े वहां पर ऐ(cid:26)ी (cid:8)ोई वस्तु (cid:8)ा रखना या होना नहीं पाया गया र्थीा क्योंकि(cid:8) खुल्ला किबना दरवाजे (cid:8)ा पूरा म(cid:8)ान र्थीा प्लान्तिस्ट(cid:8) पन्नी (cid:8)े अन्दर चारपाई (cid:8)े नीचे टीन में र्थीोडा (cid:26)ा आटा र्थीा। देखने (cid:26)े बहुत गरीब प्रतीत होते र्थीे। उ(cid:26) वक्त वहां मौजूद लोगो द्वारा आर्थिर्थी(cid:8) तंगी (cid:8)ी बात बतायी गयी र्थीी। गांव (cid:8)े लोगो (cid:8)ा (cid:8)हना र्थीा कि(cid:8) इन(cid:8)े (cid:8)ोई औलाद नहीं र्थीी व आर्थिर्थी(cid:8) तंगी आकिद (cid:26)े परे(cid:31)ान हो(cid:8)र वीरेन्द्र (cid:8)ी पत्नी (cid:31)ान्तिन्त देवी ने जहर खा खिलया र्थीा। जिज(cid:26)(cid:8)ी (cid:26)ूचना वीरेन्द्र सिं(cid:26)ह ने रात में ही अपने आ(cid:26) पा(cid:26) एवं आवेद(cid:8) राजेन्द्र (cid:8)ो भी किदया लेकि(cid:8)न उ(cid:26) (cid:26)मय (cid:8)ोई उ(cid:26)े बचाने (cid:8)े खिलए प्रया(cid:26) नहीं कि(cid:8)या जिज(cid:26)(cid:26)े (cid:31)ान्तिन्त देवी (cid:8)ा पतित वीरेन्द्र भी किनरा(cid:31) हो(cid:8)र हडबडाहट में स्वयं भी जहर खां खिलया र्थीा। चूँकि(cid:8) आवेद(cid:8) राजेन्द्र मृत(cid:8) वीरेन्द्र व उ(cid:26)(cid:8)ी पत्नी (cid:31)ान्तिन्तदेवी (cid:26)े अलग रहते र्थीे। राजेन्द्र (cid:8)ी (cid:31)ादी भी नहीं हुई है। आवेद(cid:8) ने अपने भाई एवं बहन (cid:8)ो बचाने (cid:8)ा (cid:8)ुछ भी प्रया(cid:26) नहीं कि(cid:8)या र्थीा आवेद(cid:8) (cid:8)ी बहन (cid:8)ृष्णा देवी पुत्री शि(cid:31)वनरायन अपने माय(cid:8)े किपता (cid:8)े (cid:26)ार्थी रहती र्थीी किपता (cid:8)ी मृत्यु (cid:8)े पश्चात अपने भाई वीरेन्द्र (cid:8)े (cid:26)ाकिनध्य में रहती है। चूँकि(cid:8) (cid:8)ृष्णा (cid:8)ी (cid:31)ादी (cid:8)े पश्चात ही पतित (cid:8)ा देहान्त हो गया र्थीा ऐ(cid:26)ी न्तिस्र्थीतित में वह अपने (cid:26)(cid:26)ुराल नहीं जाती र्थीी। माय(cid:8)े में ही बनी रहती र्थीी। मृत(cid:8) वीरेन्द्र (cid:8)ी (cid:8)ोई औलाद न होने (cid:8)े (cid:8)ारण उ(cid:26)(cid:8)ी (cid:26)म्पखिv लगभग 9 बीघा जमीन व (cid:8)ृष्णा भी अपने जीवन यापन (cid:8)े खिलए (cid:8)ुछ किहस्(cid:26)ा चाहती है। उक्त (cid:26)म्पखिv (cid:8)ो आवेद(cid:8) अपनी बहन (cid:8)ृष्णा (cid:8)ो नहीं देना चाहता है। चूँकि(cid:8) आवेद(cid:8) राजेन्द्र अपने किहस्(cid:26)े (cid:8)ी लगभग पूरी जमीन बेच किदया है मात्र 2-3 बीघा बची है। अब आवेद(cid:8) चाहता है कि(cid:8) मृत(cid:8) भाई वीरेन्द्र (cid:8)ी पूरी 9 बीघा जमीन मुझे अ(cid:8)ेले प्राप्त हो जाये परन्तु इ(cid:26) बात (cid:26)े उ(cid:26)(cid:8)ी बहन 13 14 (cid:8)ृष्णा (cid:26)ंतुn नहीं है और अन्य किवपक्षीगण भी इ(cid:26) बात (cid:26)े (cid:26)हमत नहीं है। आवेद(cid:8) द्वारा गांवदारी (cid:8)े (cid:8)ारण मनगढन्त (cid:8)हानी बना(cid:8)र किवपक्षीगणों पर अ(cid:26)त्य आरोप लगा(cid:8)र प्रा०पत्र अन्तग7त धारा 156(3) (cid:26)ीआरपी(cid:26)ी किदया गया है। जाँच (cid:26)े प्रा०पत्र में लगाये गये आरोपों (cid:8)ी पुकिn नहीं हुई है।" 28. The aforesaid police report submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Pailani, District Banda though states that the allegations levelled by the revisionist in his application, filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., have not been found proved but at the same time, it states that the deceased was owner of the nine bighas of agricultural land and both i.e. the revisionist and Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Smt. Krishna Devi wanted to take that land in their possession. From the contents of the police report submitted in the matter, the complicity of Smt. Krishna Devi in the commission of the offence in question cannot be ruled out as she is also having motive. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench judgement rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) had held that the registration of F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no inquiry is permissible in such a situation. It has further been held that if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain as to whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. For ready reference, paragraph 120 of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) is extracted as under: “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 14 15 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” 30. This Court finds that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) had created two categories; firstly where the contents of the information disclose commission of the cognizable offence and secondly where the contents, in categorical terms, do not disclose commission of the cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry. In the first scenario, there is no necessity for any preliminary inquiry and 15 16 registration of the F.I.R. is must but in second scenario, the direction for preliminary inquiry by the police can be given. 31. Now looking into the facts of the present case, it is quite apparent that the contents of the application, filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., in unequivocal terms demonstrate the commission of the cognizable offence therefore, in view of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra), there was no necessity for the court to call for a police report. In the matter of the revisionist, though in the police report, it had been stated that the allegations levelled, in his application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., have not been found proved but at the same time, the motive to commit crime with the Opposite Party No. 3 has not been ruled out. 32. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda ought not to have accepted the police report as a gospel truth because the contents of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., disclose commission of a cognizable offence therefore, the court, while rejecting the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., had committed manifest error of law. 33. Now this Court proceeds to consider the second issue involved in this matter, as to whether for the same incident, direction can be issued for lodging of the second F.I.R. This Court finds that the law, in respect of lodging of the second F.I.R. for the same incident, had been crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in following chain of judgements: 16 17 34. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement rendered in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) had held that the only first information with regard to commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. therefore, that information has to be registered as First Information Report and there cannot be the second F.I.R. on the subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or the incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. For ready reference, Paragraphs No. 18 & 19 of the judgement rendered in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) are extracted as under: “18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the first information report — FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during 17 18 investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H— the real offender — who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused. 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. 35. Later on, the three judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) in its judgement rendered in the case of Upkar Singh (Supra) and it had been held that where, the informant is a different person to that of the informant of the first F.I.R., the version of the incident is different and the accused are different, the second F.I.R. in respect of the same incident can be registered and investigated by the police. For the ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgement rendered in the case Upkar Singh (Supra) are being extracted as under: “1. This Court while granting leave in this appeal doubted the correctness of the judgment of this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v.State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] hence referred this case to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for being heard by a larger Bench, in these circumstances this appeal is now before us for final disposal and to consider the correctness of law laid down in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] . 16. Having carefully gone through the above judgment, we do not think that this Court in the said cases of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has precluded 18 19 an aggrieved person from filing a counter-case as in the present case. This is clear from the observations made by this Court in the abovesaid case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] in para 27 of the judgment wherein while discussing the scope of Sections 154, 156 and 173(2) CrPC, this is what the Court observed: (SCC p. 200) “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 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.” (emphasis supplied) 17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident. 18. This Court in Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi [(2002) 1 SCC 714 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 269] discussing this aspect of law held: (SCC p. 717, para 11) “11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceedings initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR No. 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted to the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceedings merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it.” (emphasis supplied) 19 20
Arguments
No. 2 i.e. to Mr. Vinod Singh was served on 07.05.2024. 8. It appears that after service of notice of this criminal revision on Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. on Vinod Singh, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Krishna Devi who is Opposite Party No. 3 in this criminal revision wherein, she claimed that the present revisionist i.e. Mr. Rajendra Singh and few other persons have administered poison to her brother, Virendra Singh and his wife and therefore, the First Information Report be lodged against Mr. Rajendra Singh and other persons and they may be punished for the offence in question. 9. A very surprising fact which is note-worthy, at this stage, is that Smt. Krishna Devi i.e. Opposite Party No. 3, in her application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has not stated as to on what date, she contacted the police of Police Station Pailani, District Banda for lodging of the F.I.R. and in the application, she has only said that when the F.I.R. was not lodged by the police, she has sent application to the Superintendent of Police, Banda through registered post on 16.04.2024. It is also noteworthy that the Virendra Singh and his wife were found dead in the morning of 7.11.2023 and Smt. Krishna Devi, for the first time, sent her application for lodging of the F.I.R. to the Superintendent of Police, Banda on 16.04.2024 i.e. after about five months. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda on the application filed by Smt. Krishna Devi again sought a report from the police of the Police Station Pailani, District Banda and this time again, police submitted almost an 4 5 identical report which was submitted at earlier point of time. Neither Smt. Krishna Devi nor the police of the Police Station concerned disclosed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda that earlier an application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been rejected and the order passed on his application is subject matter of the Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2024. 10. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, without considering the fact of delay in filing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and without even considering as to on what date, Smt. Krishna Devi for the first time tried to lodge the F.I.R. in respect of the crime in question, straightway passed an order on 03.07.2024 whereby, direction had been issued to the Station House Officer, Police Station Pailani, District Banda to register the First Information Report given by Smt. Krishna Devi. Pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2024, the F.I.R. No. 0150 of 2024 had been registered in the Police Station Pailani, District Banda under Sections 328 and 302 I.P.C. against the present revisionist i.e. Rajendra Singh, Braj Vilas Singh, Braj Kishore Singh and Manmohan Singh. 11. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 has raised a preliminary objection i.e. since one F.I.R., in respect of the crime in question, had already been registered as F.I.R. No. 0150 of 2024 wherein, the revisionist himself is an accused, the instant revision has lost its relevance, as there cannot be the second F.I.R. in respect of the same crime. 12. Sri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that if an application is filed under Section 5 6 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer that a direction be issued to the police station concerned to register the First Information Report, the court dealing with the application is under obligation to see that whether the contents of the application disclose any cognizable offence and if cognizable offence is disclosed, the court is under obligation to issue a direction to the police station concerned to register the F.I.R. in respect of the crime. It has further been argued that the contents of the application, filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in unequivocal terms, disclose a cognizable offence and further even the police report filed in the matter states that the viscera has been preserved and has been sent to F.S.L. and Smt. Krishna Devi also wants share in the property of the deceased, hence there was no occasion for the court to reject the revisionist’s application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in absolutely arbitrary manner without assigning any cogent reason, had rejected the said application. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that once the contents of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in unequivocal terms, disclose commission of the cognizable offence, there is no necessity for the court to direct the police to submit its report and in the present case even in the report filed by the police, it had come that Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Krishna Devi was also wanting a share in the property of the deceased therefore, there was no occasion for the court to rule out the possibility of the commission of the offence by Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4, as such the court could not have rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 6 7 14. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, to buttress his arguments, has relied on the judgement rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2014 (2) SCC 1 and has submitted that once contents of the application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., in unequivocal terms, disclose commission of the cognizable offence, there is no need for the court to direct the police to submit its report and the court straightway should issue direction to the police station concerned to register F.I.R. and investigate the matter. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the law in respect of the second F.I.R., regarding the same incident, had already been crystallized through series of judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court wherein, it had been categorically held that the second F.I.R., in respect of the same incident, can be lodged if the informant is a different person to that of the informant of the first F.I.R., the version of the incident given by the informant is different to that of the version given by the informant in the first F.I.R. and the accused are different persons. It has further been submitted that in the case at hand, informant is the revisionist whereas the informant in the F.I.R. already lodged is Smt. Krishna Devi. The version in respect of the incident given in the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is altogether different to that of the version given by Smt. Krishna Devi in the F.I.R. already lodged and the accused of the crime in the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are different persons to that of the accused in the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Krishna Devi. 7 8 16. Sri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has relied on the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and Others (2004) 13 SCC 292, judgement rendered in the case of Surender Kaushik and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2013) 5 SCC 148 and judgement and order dated 26.02.2020