Naresh Kumar v. Nitin and

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quash/set aside the impugned First Information Report No. 0423 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 01, Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Application [U/s 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023] No. 674 of 2025 (Naresh Kumar Vs. Nitin and 7 Others) (contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition). (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State- respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report No. 0423 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad and not to proceed investigation in pursuance to the impugned first information report and take the averments in the Application No. 674 of 2025, under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023 as statement of accused- respondent no.4 in investigation of First Information Report No. 372 2 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025 of 2025 dated 03.08.2025, under Sections 109, 191(2), 141(3), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioners."

3. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that a first information report on their behalf is lodged by one Satveer, which is registered vide Case Crime No. 372 of 2025 against 12 accused persons under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 109, 3(5) of B.N.S., in which, one Naresh- respondent no.4 is also an accused, based on the allegation that on 03.08.2025, one Ajab Singh, son of Rati Ram, reached at the place of incident in inebriated condition and on his alarm, all the accused persons nominated in the first information report, armed with lathi, danda and licensee weapon, also reached there and started assaulting the family members of the first informant (petitioners). In the meantime, one of the co-accused Mahesh, son of Mange Ram, opened fire, which hit his son Sumit, causing serious injuries to him, consequent to which, he was referred to G.T.B. Hospital, where he was medically treated.

4. It is further germane to point out here that aforesaid first information report was registered on 03.08.2025 in the night itself.

5. It appears that after registration of the said first information report, one of the co-accused of the instant case, Naresh tried to lodge another first information report alleging therein that on 03.08.2025 at about 6:00 PM, one Nitin alongwith his family members (petitioners) were trying to forcibly take possession of his field and on being asked to refrain from the said illegal act, they started assaulting them, on which, Sumit asked his brother Nitin to open fire. On his saying, Nitin fired a shot, however, they narrowly escaped but the shot hit his cousin brother Sumit.

6. It is further stated that a false first information report was lodged by Satveer on 03.08.2025 itself, however, their report was not registered and as such, Naresh moved an application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. dated 10.08.2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025 Ghaziabad, with the prayer that on the basis of the allegations made therein, a first information report be directed to be registered against the nominated accused-persons.

7. The said application dated 10.08.2025 was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ghaziabad vide order dated

06.09.2025 and on the basis of the said order, a first information report has been registered against the petitioners vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S.S., Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, which FIR is under challenge by means of the instant writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that since a first information report in respect of the incident, in question, dated

03.08.2025 has already been lodged at their instance through Satveer, the successive first information report, which is registered vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, in which, they have illegally been nominated as an accused, could not have been registered pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate.

9. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and has prayed that the impugned first information report registered vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, is liable to be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that on the basis of counter version of the same incident, another first information report in respect of the same incident can always be lodged. The submissions made by learned counsel the petitioners this regard therefore wholly misconceived and is against the settled principle of law.

11. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has further submitted that even as per the principle 4 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025 of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been categorically held that on the basis of counter version of the same incident, second FIR or successive FIR can always be lodged.

12. The contrary submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that no second FIR or successive FIR could be lodged, is wholly misplaced, misconceived and is based on misinterpretation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly untenable, illogical and is liable to be outrightly rejected and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record of the instant case, it is evident that in respect of the incident dated 03.08.2025, a first information report on behalf of the petitioners has been lodged against the respondent no.4- Naresh and 11 others including his family members, which is registered vide Case Crime No. 372 of 2025, under Sections 109, 191(2), 141(3), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, however subsequently, in respect of the same incident, respondent no.4- Naresh, on the basis of the counter version of the same incident, has got registered another FIR vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, against the petitioners. Both the FIRs are based on the allegations levelled against each other and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that second FIR could not have been lodged pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate.

14. The contrary submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners is against the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several of its decisions. Even, in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been categorically held that second FIR or successive FIR on the basis of the counter version of the same incident, can always be lodged. 5 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025

15. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that lodging of the second FIR or successive FIR against them is bad in law and therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed, is wholly misplaced, misconceived and can not be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be outrightly rejected.

16. There is no illegality in lodging of the impugned first information report against the petitioners and as such, the same can not be quashed. The instant writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 9, 2025 Nadim (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quash/set aside the impugned First Information Report No. 0423 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 01, Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Application [U/s 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023] No. 674 of 2025 (Naresh Kumar Vs. Nitin and 7 Others) (contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition). (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State- respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report No. 0423 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad and not to proceed investigation in pursuance to the impugned first information report and take the averments in the Application No. 674 of 2025, under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023 as statement of accused- respondent no.4 in investigation of First Information Report No. 372 2 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025 of 2025 dated 03.08.2025, under Sections 109, 191(2), 141(3), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioners."

3. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that a first information report on their behalf is lodged by one Satveer, which is registered vide Case Crime No. 372 of 2025 against 12 accused persons under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 109, 3(5) of B.N.S., in which, one Naresh- respondent no.4 is also an accused, based on the allegation that on 03.08.2025, one Ajab Singh, son of Rati Ram, reached at the place of incident in inebriated condition and on his alarm, all the accused persons nominated in the first information report, armed with lathi, danda and licensee weapon, also reached there and started assaulting the family members of the first informant (petitioners). In the meantime, one of the co-accused Mahesh, son of Mange Ram, opened fire, which hit his son Sumit, causing serious injuries to him, consequent to which, he was referred to G.T.B. Hospital, where he was medically treated.

4. It is further germane to point out here that aforesaid first information report was registered on 03.08.2025 in the night itself.

5. It appears that after registration of the said first information report, one of the co-accused of the instant case, Naresh tried to lodge another first information report alleging therein that on 03.08.2025 at about 6:00 PM, one Nitin alongwith his family members (petitioners) were trying to forcibly take possession of his field and on being asked to refrain from the said illegal act, they started assaulting them, on which, Sumit asked his brother Nitin to open fire. On his saying, Nitin fired a shot, however, they narrowly escaped but the shot hit his cousin brother Sumit.

6. It is further stated that a false first information report was lodged by Satveer on 03.08.2025 itself, however, their report was not registered and as such, Naresh moved an application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. dated 10.08.2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025 Ghaziabad, with the prayer that on the basis of the allegations made therein, a first information report be directed to be registered against the nominated accused-persons.

7. The said application dated 10.08.2025 was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ghaziabad vide order dated

06.09.2025 and on the basis of the said order, a first information report has been registered against the petitioners vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S.S., Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, which FIR is under challenge by means of the instant writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that since a first information report in respect of the incident, in question, dated

03.08.2025 has already been lodged at their instance through Satveer, the successive first information report, which is registered vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, in which, they have illegally been nominated as an accused, could not have been registered pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate.

9. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and has prayed that the impugned first information report registered vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, is liable to be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that on the basis of counter version of the same incident, another first information report in respect of the same incident can always be lodged. The submissions made by learned counsel the petitioners this regard therefore wholly misconceived and is against the settled principle of law.

11. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has further submitted that even as per the principle 4 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025 of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been categorically held that on the basis of counter version of the same incident, second FIR or successive FIR can always be lodged.

12. The contrary submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that no second FIR or successive FIR could be lodged, is wholly misplaced, misconceived and is based on misinterpretation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly untenable, illogical and is liable to be outrightly rejected and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record of the instant case, it is evident that in respect of the incident dated 03.08.2025, a first information report on behalf of the petitioners has been lodged against the respondent no.4- Naresh and 11 others including his family members, which is registered vide Case Crime No. 372 of 2025, under Sections 109, 191(2), 141(3), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, however subsequently, in respect of the same incident, respondent no.4- Naresh, on the basis of the counter version of the same incident, has got registered another FIR vide Case Crime No. 423 of 2025, under Sections 329(4), 115(2), 109(1) of B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, against the petitioners. Both the FIRs are based on the allegations levelled against each other and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that second FIR could not have been lodged pursuant to the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate.

14. The contrary submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners is against the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several of its decisions. Even, in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been categorically held that second FIR or successive FIR on the basis of the counter version of the same incident, can always be lodged. 5 CRLP No. 22033 of 2025

15. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that lodging of the second FIR or successive FIR against them is bad in law and therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed, is wholly misplaced, misconceived and can not be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be outrightly rejected.

16. There is no illegality in lodging of the impugned first information report against the petitioners and as such, the same can not be quashed. The instant writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 9, 2025 Nadim (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad