IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.806 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Smt. Bhuvwaneshwari Devi & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: September 29, 2010 Sri Pankaj Purohit, Adv. for the applicants Sri MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 22.9.2006 in criminal case no.573/2006 u/s 452/504/506/147 IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 {hereinafter to be referred as the SC/ST Act} and with further prayer that the entire proceedings of the criminal case no.573/2006 pending before CJM, Pauri Garhwal may also be quashed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2- Chammu Lal lodged a complaint before the J.M. First Class, Pauri Garhwal on 15.6.1999 u/s 147/392/427/504/506 IPC and 3/10 of SC/ST Act against the petitioners, relating to an alleged incident of 19.4.1999. In that complaint, the trial court vide order dated 17.6.1999 summoned the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the said order dated 17.6.99, which was dismissed by the trial court on 21.1.2000. Against the said order dated 21.1.2000, the petitioners preferred a revision, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Pauri Garhwal vide judgment and order dated 16.5.2003 and accordingly the orders dated 21.1.2000 and 17.6.1999, passed by the trial court, were set aside. Thereafter, Smt. Bhageshwar Devi, wife of respondent no.2, lodged an FIR on 4.3.2004, that is almost after five years, in respect of the same incident, which was registered as crime no.08/2004. However, that FIR resulted in final report. On receiving the final report, the learned Magistrate refused to accept the same and directed the I.O. to re-investigate the matter. But, now this time, respondent no.2-Chammu Lal himself lodged third FIR on 4.3.2006 with regard to the same incident dated 19.4.1999, with Patwari Circle Meldhar, Tehsil Thalisain, District Pauri Garhwal against the petitioners relating to the offences u/s 452/504/506/147 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. On this FIR, which was lodged almost after six years, the Investigating Officer has submitted the impugned charge sheet on 22.9.2006 before the trial court. Assailing the said charge sheet and the entire proceedings, this petition has been preferred. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the instant FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law on the part of the respondent no.2 inasmuch as it is the third FIR against the petitioners. I find force in this argument. In the instant case, firstly the complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 on 15.6.1999 before the trial court against the petitioners, in which the trial court took cognizance and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 17.6.1999. Later an application to recall the said order dated 17.6.1999 was also filed by the petitioners before the trial court which too was dismissed on 21.1.2000 by the trial court. Assailing the said order dated 21.1.2000, the petitioners preferred a revision which was allowed by the revisional court vide judgment and order dated 16.5.2003 thereby quashing the orders dated 21.1.2000 and 17.6.1999. That order has now become final. Thereafter on 4.3.2004, Smt. Bhageshwar Devi, wife of the respondent no.2 lodged an FIR, in which initially after the investigation, the final report was submitted but when the final report was submitted before the Magistrate, it was rejected and the I.O. was directed to re-investigate the matter. Even the reinvestigation is still going on in that case, now the respondent no.2 again, for the third time, on 4.3.2006, i.e. almost about seven years, thereby assailing the same incident dated 19.4.1999, lodged this FIR against the petitioners, wherein the I.O. has submitted the charge sheet. It is settled law that there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. However, in the present case, it is not the second but it is the third FIR lodged against the petitioners by the respondent no.2 on the same facts and the same incident, just to pressurize the petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant FIR and even the charge sheet filed on the basis of the said FIR, cannot be allowed to be continued and the same is liable to be quashed. I am fortified in my view with the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & others” reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases Page 181. Para 20 of the said judgment is relevant to mention here, which reads as under: - “20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house dairy, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.” Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not attracted in this case as in the entire FIR, it was nowhere been mentioned that the petitioners were not the members of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 within public view, hence the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act is also not made out. I find force in this argument put forth on behalf of the petitioners. On a bare perusal of the FIR itself, there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioners were not the members of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe community and they intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate respondent no.2 within public view. It is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners to face the criminal trial under the SC/ST Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. Reliance is placed upon a Hon’ble Supreme Court verdict in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446”. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as below: - “In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant- accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law” Perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 shows that the complainant has nowhere alleged that the petitioners are not the members of the Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe community and they intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 within public view. As such, the Court is of the view that as against the petitioners, since the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act are not made out, as such the criminal trial with respect to the said offence is also liable to be quashed. For the reasons as aforementioned, the instant C482 petition is allowed. Impugned charge sheet dated 22.9.2006 submitted against the petitioners as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no.573/2006, State Vs. Smt. Bhuwaneshwari Devi & others, u/s 452/504/506/147 IPC and 3(1)(x)(xv) of the SC/ST Act, are accordingly quashed. Interim order dated 18.10.2006 is vacated accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) September 29, 2010 Rdang