Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 3 June 2003 passed in Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2003 Badri Narayan Tewari Vs. State of U.P. The seventh applicant was married to the daughter of the opposite party No. 2. Upon relations souring, the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 consequent to a failure on the part of the police authorities to register an FIR filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants alleging commission of offences under Sections 147,308,323,325,504,506,498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On the said complaint, the Magistrate by an order dated 8 April 2003 directed the police authorities to register an FIR and initiate investigation.
(2.) The challenge laid by the applicants to this order failed with a learned Judge of this Court dismissing their application under Section 482 No. 1185 of 2003 on 25 April 2003. The Opposite party No. 2 in the meanwhile instituted a separate complaint under Section 156 (3) alleging commission of offences under Sections 147,323, 325,504 and 506 IPC. The Magistrate by an order dated 10 April 2003 dismissed this application holding that the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 had already instituted a complaint pursuant to which an FIR had been directed to be registered. He accordingly held that in respect of the same incident two separate cases cannot possibly be registered. This order of the Magistrate was challenged by the opposite party No. 2 in revision bearing Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2003. The revisional Court in terms of the order impugned has taken the view that the Magistrate clearly erred in rejecting the complaint of the opposite party No. 2. The revisional Court held that the subsequent complaint was in essence a "cross version" and that therefore, the Magistrate had clearly erred in holding that both complaints were identical and related to the same incident. It is in the above backdrop that the instant criminal revision came to be filed.
(3.) Before this Court, it was contended that a perusal of the complaint allegations would establish that the initial application made by the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 clearly referred to the incident stated to have occurred on 15 March 2003. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist the subsequent complaint of the opposite party No. 2 relating solely to the incident dated 15 March 2003 would clearly fall within the specie of an identical second complaint which was rightly rejected by the Magistrate. According to the learned counsel there cannot be successive or separate complaints in respect of the same incident in terms of the provisions of Section 154 CrPC. Learned counsel would submit that the reporting of a crime or the commission of an offence under Section 154 must necessarily be confined to the first of such complaints and it is the initial complaint alone which would warrant registration and investigation. The submission in essence is based upon the principles enunciated by two learned Judges of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 6 SCC 181 To buttress his submission, the learned counsel has referred to the following principles as culled out by the Supreme Court and embodied in paragraphs 19, 20 and 27 of the report. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, the above mentioned paragraphs are extracted hereunder: "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 Section 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 Cr.P.C. 20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154 155 156 157 162 169 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a 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 of the Cr.P.C. 27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the Court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narangs' case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.";