- (1.) Service on respondent no. 3 is deemed to be sufficient in view of the office report dated 15.9.2015. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. None is present on behalf of the respondent no. 3.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Rakesh Yadav with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. Dated 10.2.2015 registered as Case Crime No. 125 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, district Maharajganj (Annexure -1 to this writ petition). Briefly stated facts of this case are that Lalita Devi, respondent no. 3, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj which was registered as Misc. Application No. 483 of 2014 with a prayer for registering a first information report against the petitioner and his brother under appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code and investigating the same on the allegations inter alia that the respondent no. 3 who is resident of village Khamhaura Tola Banjariya, P.S. Nichlaul, district Maharajganj had moved a joint application alongwith petitioner on 8.11.2012 before the Special Marriage Officer, Maharajganj in which he had disclosed his status as that of an unmarried man with a prayer for issuing marriage certificate; that on his promise of marriage with her, the respondent no. 3 started living with the petitioner as his wife in a rented house in Nichlaul; that the petitioner obtained a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- from her on the pretext of purchasing a plot and also got the registration of the Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration no. UP 56 I 7774 which she had purchased for him, transferred in his favour on the basis of misrepresentation; that when the respondent no. 3 insisted the petitioner to take her to her matrimonial home in Khamhaura, he distanced himself from her which made her suspicious and on her making inquiry she found that the petitioner was already married to one Punita Devi and had 3 children from her; that when the respondent no. 3 confronted the petitioner with the aforesaid facts, he abandoned her saying that he no longer needed her as he had already extracted from her everything which he wanted and that he will now live with his wife and children and thereafter he turned her out of his rented accommodation. Pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2014 passed on the aforesaid application of the respondent no. 3 by the A.C.J.M., Case Crime No. 1453 of 2014 under Sections 376, 506, 419 and 420 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Nichlaul, district Maharajganj against the petitioner and his brother Ishwar (copy of the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 1453 of 2014 under Sections 376, 506, 419 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station Nichlaul, district Maharajganj has been filed as annexure - 2 to the writ petition). While the investigation in Case Crime No. 1453 of 2014 was in progress, the respondent no. 3 lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner and an unknown clerk of R.T.O. office on 10.2.2015 which was registered as Case Crime No. 125 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, district Maharajganj (copy of the impugned F.I.R. has been filed as annexure - 1 to the writ petition).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner is with regard to the same incident which is the subject matter of investigation of Case Crime No. 1453 of 2014, P.S. Nichlaul, district Maharajganj. He next submitted that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.Rs. are identical in nature to the application moved by the respondent no. 3 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case Crime No. 1453 of 2014 pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by A.C.J.M. on the aforesaid application. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to paragraph 3 of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and submitted that both the F.I.Rs. contain the same allegation that the petitioner had got the registration of Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration no. UP 56 I 7774 which the respondent no. 3 had purchased for him, transferred in his favour on the basis of misrepresentation made by him before the R.T.O. He lastly submitted that the same informant cannot lodge second F.I.R. with regard to the same incident. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 AIR(SC) 2637 . Learned A.G.A. Submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.;