{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3425 OF 2006 1 Subhash Narayan Koli @ Saindane Age-33 years, Occ-Money Lender 2. Jitendra Narayan Koli @ Saindane Age-25 years, Occ-Education 3. Jaubai Narayan Koli @ Saindane Age-60 years, Occ-Household 4. Kesharbai Totaram Thakare Age-62 years, Occ-Nil 5. Nathu Totaram Thakare Age-41 years, Occ-Labour All R/o Jainabad Walmiknagar, Jalgaon APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. In-Charge Police Station Officer, Bajarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal Dist-Jalgaon 3. In-Charge Police Station Officer, Shanipeth Police Station, Jalgaon RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the applicants Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondents State ....... {2} [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 4th August 2010 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 11th August 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. By the present criminal application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants had initially prayed to quash and set aside the FIR in CR No.56/2010 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal, vide prayer clause “B”. It appears that during the pendecy of the application, the application suffered amendment and by prayer clause No.BB, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR and further proceedings of CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. 2. Record shows that vide order dated 08.12.2006, Rule came to be issued along with ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause “BBB”. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. Also perused the charge sheets submitted in connection with CR No.56/2006 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal so also in connection with CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. {3} 4. In this application, in response to the notice, State has filed an affidavit of one Keshav Shamrao Patond, Police Inspector, who was attached to Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal at the relevant time. 5. Few facts, which are necessary to the decision of this application and which are not seriously disputed, may briefly be stated thus- a) On 11th June 2006, an offence came to be registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal at CR No.56/2006 for an offence punishable u/s 2, 22 and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against four accused namely, Nasir Ahmed Gulam Gaus, Shaikh Shahabuddin Shaikh Mohinuddin, Shaikh Khalil Shaik Rasid and Mariyanbi Nasir Ahmed as certain contrabands were recovered from them. It appears that after their arrest, during interrogation, confessional statement of accused Nasir Ahmed Gulam Gaus came to be recorded on 11.06.2006. It is alleged that said accused has disclosed that the said contrabands were procured by him from the premises, situated at Jainabad, Walmiknagar, Jalgaon. b) It further appears that on 14.06.2006, the said premises at Jainabad, Walmiknagar, Jalgaon was raided and at that time the present applicants were found occupying the {4} said premises. During search of the said premises, brown sugar, dry ganja and wet bhang were recovered along with certain cash and mobile phone. The present applicants came to be arrested and were produced before the District and Sessions Judge, Jalgaon along with the remand report, on the same day. c) It further appears that an offence was also registered with Shanipeth police station, Jalgaon against the present accused at CR No.19/2006 and the applicants are shown as arrested on transfer warrant. 6. In this background heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP. According to learned counsel for the applicants, for the seizure effected on 14.06.2006, the present applicants are shown as accused in CR No.56/2006 of Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal and at the same time, they are also shown as accused in connection with CR No.19/2006 registered with Shani Peth police station, Jalgaon. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that there shall not be two crimes for same offence in two different police stations. 7. My attention is drawn towards the contents of para 5 of the affidavit in reply filed by PI Mr.Patond, who was attached to Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal. In the said affidavit, he has stated that “I say that it is true that when raid was conducted in the {5} jurisdiction of Shanipeth in Cr.No.56/2006 a separate offence was registered at Shanipeth P.S. Vide Cr.No.19/2006 u/sec. 8, 22, 27 of the NDPS Act on the complaint filed by Chabildas Ramu Gavande, PHC of Bhusawal of Bajarpeth police station. The accused Subhash Narayan Koli, Jitendra Narayan Koli, Jaubai Narayan Koli, Kesharbai Totaram Thakare and Nathu Totaram Thakare were initially arrested in Cr.No.56/2006 and subsequently transferred in Cr.No.19/2006 of Shanipeth police station. They were produced before the Judicial Magistrate Bhusawal for remand and were remanded into police custody up to 21.06.2006 and they were transferred to Shanipeth police station in Cr.No.19/2006 on 22.06.2006. The investigation in both the cases is in progress.” 8. It is not disputed by learned APP that these applicants were shown as accused in connection with CR No.56/2006 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal. Copy of the charge sheet in connection with CR No.56/2006 is shown for the perusal of the Court. The present applicants are shown as accused in the said charge sheet. Thus, it is clear from the charge sheet that the applicants are accused in connection with CR No.56/2006 registered with Bajarpeth police station, Bhusawal as well as they are also shown as accused in connection with CR No.19/2006 on the same allegations, which is registered with Shanipeth police station, Jalgaon. 9. The Apex Court, in the matter of “T.T.Antohy V/s {6} State of Kerala” reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 3329 has observed in para No.18 and 19 as follows: 18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is very important document. And as its nick name 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 into motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Sections 169 and 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more information 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 of Cr.P.C. apart from a vague information by a phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer-in- charge of police station is the First Information Report – F.I.R. Postulated by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. All other information 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 of Cr.P.C. 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 can not be in conformity with the scheme {7} of the Cr.P.C. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizance offence under Sections 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 I.P.C. 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 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. 19. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer- in-charge of a Police Station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. 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 evidence collected he has to form opinion under sections 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. 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 of Cr.P.C. {8} 10. From the observations of the Apex Court in the above referred judgment, it is clear that there cannot be a second FIR in respect of same cognizable offence and same incident or occurrence. From the facts which are discussed in above paragraphs, it is clear that that for the recovery of contrabands from the premises situated at Jainabad Walmikinagar Jalgaon, kept by the applicants, the applicants are shown as accused in CR No.56/2006 registered with Bajarpeth police station. Again for the same seizure of contrabands they are also shown accused in CR No.19/2006 registered with Shanipeth police station,Jalgaon, which is not permissible in law. 11. In view of settled legal principle of law and as observed by the Apex Court in the matter of T.T.Antony, referred supra, the second FIR registered at CR No.19/2006 with Shanipeth police station is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Crime No.19/2006 registered with Shanipeth police station, Jalgaon along with further proceedings initiated pursuant to the same, are hereby quashed and set aside. 12. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause “BB” of the application. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3425-06