PANKAJ NAQVI,RAJ BEER SINGH - (1.) Heard Sri Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.N. Mulla, the learned A.G.A. This writ petition has been filed, for seeking quashment of the following 4 FIR's: (a) The FIR dated 19.1.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 0019 of 2020, under Sections 379 , 411 IPC and 4, 21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act 1957, under Section 3, 57, 70 UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at P.S. Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj. (b) The FIR dated 19.1.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 0020 of 2020, under Sections 379 , 411 IPC and 4, 21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act 1957, under Section 3, 57, 70 UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at P.S. Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj. (c) The FIR dated 19.1.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 0021 of 2020, under Sections 379 IPC and U/s 4, 21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act 1957, under Section 3, 57, 70 UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at P.S. Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj. (d) The FIR dated 19.1.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 0022 of 2020, under Section 379 IPC and 4, 21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act 1957, under Section 3, 57, 70 UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and under Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at P.S. Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj.
(2.) The sheet-anchor submission of the petitioner is that as multiple FIR's have been filed in respect of the same allegations, thus three out of four FIR's are liable to be quashed, as three subsequent FIR's would not only perpetuate the abuse of the process of law, but would also be in teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala , 2001(6) SCC 181.
(3.) Learned AGA strongly refuting the submissions submitted that whether the allegation made in the subsequent FIR's is based on the same allegations vis-a-vis the first FIR or not is dependent on the outcome of the pending investigation, in which a report under Section 173(2) CrPC is yet to be filed. He thus submitted that the I.O, concerned shall take a call at an appropriate stage.;