Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.05.2010 Bhola Singh, SI/SHO, Dharam Kot, District Moga son of Kharait Singh, r/o village Karmuwala, P.S. Ghal Khurd, District Ferozepur, Punjab. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 224 dated 22.10.05, under Section 342 IPC, P.S. Dharamkot, District Moga, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 22.10.05, Raja Singh, complainant, made a complaint, to Narinder Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, to the effect, that Bhola Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamkot, and, his gunman Kewal Singh, Head Constable, had illegally detained his nephew namely Pappa Singh, in the Police lockup, and, they were demanding a sum Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 2 of Rs. 10,000/-, as gratification, other than legal remuneration, for releasing him. It was stated that, after negotiations, the deal was struck at Rs. 7,000/-, for releasing Pappa Singh. Accordingly, a raiding party, was constituted, by Narinderpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, which included Raja Singh, complainant, Dr. Yaspal Aggarwal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga, and Gurmail Singh, Clerk, Sub Division, Dharamkot. Thereafter, the raiding party, proceeded towards the house of Bhola Singh, petitioner, and, on getting the requisite signal, from the complainant, raided his house, as a result whereof, Kewal Singh, Head Constable, was caught red handed, while, Bhola Singh, succeeded in running away. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was registered. Kewal Singh, accused, was arrested, at the spot. Bhola Singh, accused, was also arrested later on. After the completion of investigation, the accused, were challaned. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, since the petitioner, was discharged of the offences, punishable under Sections 224, 225, 120-B IPC, and, 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in case FIR No. 52 dated 22.10.05, by the trial Court, and, revision filed against the same, by the respondent-State was also dismissed, by this Court, no separate case, relating to the same transaction, under Section 342 IPC, could be registered, against the petitioner. He further submitted that, it was Pappa Singh, who Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 3 was allegedly illegally detained, in the Police Station, by the petitioner, alongwith his co-petitioner (non-applicant), and, illegal gratification, in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, was demanded. He further submitted that, in case, the Investigating Agency, thought it fit, it could add the offence, punishable under Section 342 IPC, in FIR No. 52 itself. He further submitted that, even if, during the course of investigation, the offence, punishable under Section 342 IPC, was disclosed, it could be added, in FIR No. 52, referred to above, instead of registering a separate FIR, with regard to the said offence. He further submitted that it amounted to double jeopardy. He further submitted that, FIR No. 224, dated 22.10.05, under Section 342 IPC, Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, is nothing, but an abuse of the process of Court, and liable to be set aside. He also placed reliance, on T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2001, SCC (Crl.), 1048 (SC), Gopal Krishan and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2006(3), RCR (Criminal), 310 (P&H), Jasjit Singh Bhasin and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2006(2), RCR (Criminal), 813 (P&H), and, Kari Choudhary Vs. Sita Devi, 2002 (1), RCR (Criminal), 86 (SC), in support of his contention. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, the present FIR, was registered, against the petitioner, as he had illegally detained Pappa Singh, in the Police Station. He further submitted that, the mere fact, that the petitioner and his co- petitioner (non-applicant), were discharged for various offences, in FIR No. 52 dated 22.10.05, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 4 Ferozepur, did not mean, that separate FIR, under Section 342 IPC, for a distinct offence, could not be registered, against the petitioner. He further submitted that, this FIR, does not amount to abuse of the process of Court and law, and, is not liable to be set aside. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. A complaint, was made, by Raja Singh, that his nephew Pappa Singh, had been illegally detained, by the Police of Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, including the petitioner, who was posed, as Station House Officer of the said Police Station, and, he was demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, as gratification, other than legal remuneration for his release. On the basis of said allegations, FIR No. 52, dated 22.10.05, was registered, in Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, under Section 224, 225, 120-B IPC, and, 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Annexure P1). It is evident that, vide order dated 14.12.06, the petitioner and Tara Singh, Head Constable (non-applicant), were discharged. However, later on, Bhola Singh, was summoned, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. One revision-petition, was filed, by Bhola Singh, against the summoning order, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the second revision-petition, was filed, by the State, vide which, he was discharged. This Court, vide order dated 21.07.09 (Annexure P4), accepted the revision-petition, filed by Bhola Singh, petitioner, and dismissed the revision-petition, filed by the State, holding that, Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 5 the record/roznamcha of the Police Station, was tampered with, with a view, to insert the names of Bhola Singh and Tara Singh, Head Constable. The offence, punishable under Section 342 IPC, if any, with regard to the alleged illegal detention of Pappa Singh, related to the same transaction. The Investigating Agency, if thought it fit, could include the offence, under Section 342 IPC, in FIR No. 52 dated 22.10.05. In respect of the offence, allegedly committed, during the course of same transaction, separate FIR No. 224 dated 22.10.05, under Section 342 IPC, could not be registered. In T.T Antony's case (supra), it was held that, there could not be second FIR, and, no fresh investigation, on receipt of every subsequent information, in respect of the same cognizable offence, or same occurrence, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, could be conducted. Only information about the commission of a cognizable offence, which is first entered, in the Station House Diary, by the Officer in-charge of the Police Station, can be regarded, as FIR, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. All such subsequent information, shall be covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C. The officer in charge of the 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 Cr.P.C. Even if after conclusion of the investigation, pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the officer in charge of the Police Station comes across any Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 6 further information, pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the Court ad forward the further evidence, if any collected, with further report or reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In Gopal Krishan and others' case (supra), it was also held, that two FIRs, with regard to the identical facts, relating to the same transaction, could not be lodged. In Jasjit Singh Bhasin and another's case (supra), it was held, that two FIRs, regarding the same offence, could not be registered. In that case, one FIR, under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC, was registered, at Chandigarh, and the second FIR, was registered, at Dera Bassi, on the same facts and circumstances. It was held, that the FIR, at Dera Bassi, was the abuse of the process of Court, and, the Police, transgressed its powers. In Kari Choudhary's case (supra), it was held, that there cannot be two FIRs, against the accused, in respect of the same case. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable, to the facts of the present case. As stated above, if the offence, punishable under Section 342 PC, was disclosed, that could be included, in FIR No. 52, or, if the same, was disclosed, during the course of further investigation, report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., could be submitted, in the same FIR. The instant FIR, which is the second one, relating to the same transaction, could not be registered. The instant FIR, is, thus, nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and law. If the same, is not quashed, then it will amount to causing grave injustice to the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009 7 7. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-29645 of 2009, is accepted. FIR No. 224 dated 22.10.05, under Section 342 IPC, P.S. Dharamkot, District Moga, is quashed, qua the petitioner. 17.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE