CRIMINAL REVISION NO.980 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 Naginder Singh, Sarpanch .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for Mr. J. S. Rattu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting-aside order dated 10.3.2007 passed by Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, holding that no offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) is made out and had sent the case back for trial to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The primary submission made by learned counsel for the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.980 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: petitioner to challenge this order is that Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, would not be justified in reading the contents of FIR No.108 dated 27.6.2005 under Section 324 IPC to arrive at the conclusion that no offence under Section 3 of the Act is made out. The facts, in brief, are that on the basis of an occurrence that took place on 27.6.2005, FIR No.108 was registered at the instance of one Palwinder Singh at Police Station Hariana. The police has filed a challan, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-2. Palwinder Singh also disclosed that he intervened and stopped Sarpanch party and Harjinder Singh @ Pappu from having a quarrel and, therefore, injuries had been caused to him. On the basis of this, another FIR No.109 dated 28.6.2005 in regard to this quarrel, leading to injuries to Palwinder Singh was also lodged. In this FIR, basically the allegations are made under Section 432 IPC and Section 3 of the Act. After investigation, challan was also presented in this FIR, which is at Annexure P-2. Since the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act were alleged, the case was committed for trial to the Court of Special Judge, Hoshiarpur. While framing the charge, the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, has relied upon the contents of FIR No.108 registered prior to FIR No.109 as these pertained to the same very incident but manner and narration have obviously been changed. The Special Judge, while relying upon the contents of FIR No.108, has come to the conclusion that charge under Section 3 of the Act can not be framed against the petitioner on the basis of challan presented in FIR No.109. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.980 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: The grievance of the petitioner is that contents of one FIR could not have been read with the other FIR to come to a conclusion that charge under Section 3 or 4 of the Act was not open to the framed. It is the submission of the learned counsel that truth and veracity of the allegations are to be seen and requirement is of only seeing the prima-facie nature of the offence on the basis of challan submitted. During the course of argument, the issue also arose whether there could be two FIRs registered in respect of same allegations or incident. Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State were unanimous in this regard that there is no provision to register two FIRs in respect of same offence or incident. In this regard, my attention is drawn to the case of T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 436. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the scheme of the Act would show that only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are reproduced below:- “From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus, there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on CRIMINAL REVISION NO.980 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: 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 F.I.R. in the station house diary, 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 of the Cr.P.C.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone ahead to determine as to what would be the situation if a second report or FIR is registered. Noticing that information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information Report, the Court has observed that it sets the criminal law into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation. It is also noticed that 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. It is then observed that:- “In such a case, he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.980 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report-F.I.R. Postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. 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 (sic-161). No such information/statement can properly be treated as an F.I.R. 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 the Cr.P.C. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C. And the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives a 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 investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H – CRIMINAL REVISION NO.980 OF 2007 :{ 6 }: the real offender – who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173 (2) or 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the concerned Magistrate even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.” It is, thus, clear that there can not be two FIRs in respect of same incident. In the present case, the Station House Officer was totally misconceived in lodging two FIRs in regard to the same incident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the information supplied and recorded as FIR No.109 dated 28.6.2005 has to be treated as a subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is so directed in this case. The Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, would take up the case in FIR No.108 dated 27.6.2005, treating the information supplied in FIR No.109 as a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Special Judge would then decide whether there is sufficient material, prima-facie, made out for framing a charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act or any other offence that may be made out. The action of the Special Judge in relying upon an information in FIR No.108, not to frame a charge in FIR No. 109 can not be sustained. It is made clear that FIR No.108 shall be treated as a First Information Report in this case and the information supplied and taken on record, including FIR No.109, would be taken as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The necessary consequences of this legal position would ensue. While framing charge, the Special Judge is required to act in accordance CRIMINAL REVISION NO.980 OF 2007 :{ 7 }: with this legal position. The present revision is accordingly disposed of. September 22,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE