Judgment:
Garg, J.
1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners with a prayer that FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station Jayal, Dist. Nagore under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. may be quashed.
2. It arises in the following circumstances :
FIR No. 71/2001 of the Police Station Roll Dist. NAGORE FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 279 AND 304-A l.P.C,
(i) That one Prahlad Ram lodged a report with the Police Station Roll on 30.9.2001 at 9 a.m. stating that on 29.9.2001 accused petitioner Jugal Kishore and Gopal Ram took Kheraj S/o Rarndhan Jat (his nephew) (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) to village Khiyala and at that time the accused was having new motor-cycle of Bajaj mark. Atabout 4 a.m. in the morning he received an information that the deceased had met with an accident and thereafter brother of deceased Raju Ram and some other persons reached hospital where accused petitioners were also there and accused petitioner Jugal Kishore Soni told Prahlad Ram that the accused petitioners and deceased were coming to Nagore from Khiyala after sitting in a jeep No. RJ-14-C-919 and in the night at about 9 p.m., a truck after coming on wrong side dashed against the jeep as a result of which the deceased? received head injury and thereafter in injured condition, he was taken from nagore to Jodhpur and on the way the deceased succumbed to his injuries. On this report a FIR No. 71/2001 of the Police Station Roll under Section 279 and 304-A l.P.C. was registered and investigation was started.FACTS OF FIR NO. 135/2001 OF THE POLICE STATION JAYAL FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 365, 302, 201 AND 120-B l.P.C.
On 29.10.2001, Ramdeo lodged a written complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagore against the present accused petitioners for committing the offences under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. inter alia stating that on 29.9.2001 at about 4 p.m. one person came along with accused petitioners Gopal Ram and upto 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. both remained to STD booth where the deceased used to work and at about 7 p.m. they asked the deceased to go with them, but the deceased refused to go with him on the ground that none was there to look after his STD booth. Thereafter the accused petitioners Jugai Kishore and Gopal Ram went to Kadar Ali and Kadar Ali was asked to look after STD booth of the deceased and thereafter deceased went with them on a motor-cycle towards Khiyala and accused petitioner Jugal Kishore told Kadar Ali that they would return very soon, but the deceased did not return during whole of the night and in the morning at about 4 a.m. Anda Ram, Surja Ram, Idan Jat and Jagdish came in a jeep and Anda Ram told that some had received injuries as this information was received by one Sawant Ram who had sent these persons and thereafter when they reached hospital, they found accused petitioners in the hospital and he was informed by Jugal Kishore, accused petitioner that deceased had died and his body was lying in the morchery. The accused petitioner Jugal Kishore further informed that the deceased died because of accident of jeep and at that time the jeep was being driven by the deceased. He further asked them to make a report and at that time Prahlad came there and he lodged the FIR No. 71/2001 dated 30.9.2001. Thereafter the deadbody of the deceased was handed over to them and he was cremated. Thereafter a rumour spread in the village that the deceased did not the because of the accident, but he was murdered by the accused petitioners and, therefore, he filed that complaint on 29.10.2001.(ii) That complaint was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagore to SHO, Police Station Jayal for registration of the case and upon this FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station Jayal for offence under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120-B l.P.C. was registered against the accused petitioners.
3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since earlier to FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station Jayal. FIR No. 71/2001 of the Police Station Roll was lodged and investigation was in progress, therefore, second FIR which was lodged after a delay of one month was false one and it was lodged by respondent No. 2 Ramdeo for personal vengeance against the accused petitioners and thus lodging of FIR No. 135/2001 as well as its investigation is gross abuse of process of Court at the hands of respondent No. 2 and the same deserves to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the base of T.T. Antonmy v. State of Kerala (1), and the learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn my attention to para 27 of that judgment.
5. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned P.P. and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the matter is yet with the police under investigation and therefore, subsequent FIR No. 135/2001 should not be quashed and the police should be left free to make fair investigation in respect of both FIRs.
6. I have heard both.
7. The pertinent question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, subsequent FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station Jayal should be quashed or not specially when earlier to that FIR, investigation on FIR No. 71/2001 of the Police Station Roll was still pending with the police.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (2), has held that if the matter is only at the stage of investigation by the police, the High Court cannot exercise the inherent power interfering with the statutory power of the police.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanya Kumar (3), has further reiterated the same view.
10. The argument that registration of second FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station, Jayal in respect of same incident and crime and making investigation pursuant thereto would be abuse of process of court, is not to be appreciated at all because FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station, Jayal constitutes different story and while FIR No. 71/2001 of the Police Station Roll constitutes a different story of the same incident and it is for the police to investigate the matter and come to correct conclusion on the point as to which story between the two is correct one. Therefore, this argument would not be helpful to the learned counsel for the accused petitioner.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the prayer that the subsequent FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police station Jayal be quashed does not appear to be just and proper.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners has further observed as under :
'If the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs- the first and second is in substance and truth the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report Under Section 173, Cr.P.C. will be irregular and the Court cannot take cognizance of the same.'
13. These observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly negative the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if contents of first and second FIR are in substance the same, in such situation lodging of second FIR is not permitted. As stated earlier, no doubt, in both the FIRs, the person suffered is deceased, but both the FIRs disclose different stones on the point as to how he died. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that the contents of both the FIRs are not the same. Thus T.T. Antony's case (supra) would not be helpful so far as facts of the present case are concerned.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment Kari Chaudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and Ors. (4), has held that of course legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of same case, but when there are rival versions, they would normally take the shape, of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of the them by the same investigating agency.
15. Thus the above pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court further strengthens the point that if stories in respect of same incident are different in two FIRs, one FIR out of them should not be quashed. From this point of view-also, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second FIR No. 135/2001 of the Police Station Jayal should be quashed carries no weight and cannot be accepted.
16. That apart this Court in Madho Ram and Ors. v. State of Raj. and Ors. (5), has taken similar view.
17. For the reasons mentioned above, this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly this misc. petition filed by the accused petitioners is dismissed.