- (1.) THESE two writ petitions relate to the same crime, therefore, they are disposed of together by a common order, which is being passed in criminal misc. writ petition No. 5012 of 2009.
(2.) BY way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the FIR registered by Karchana police, district Allahabad on crime No. 60 of 2009 under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, IPC and 3/4 DP. Act and have prayed for quashing the FIR and preventing arrest. We have heard Shri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
(3.) IT appears from the record that Smt. Nasreen Bano was the daughter of the complainant -informant, who was married with Mohd. Haseen @ Achchey on 29.11.2008. Smt. Nasreen Bano died on 5.2.2009. The allegations of the prosecution are that she was burnt alive by the petitioners and other family members for demand of dowry. The inquest report and post -mortem report (Annexures 3 and 4) shows that she had died due to deep burn injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that in this case two FIRs were lodged by the complainant -informant, one was registered on 18.2.2009, another was entered in the general diary on 5.2.2009. Annexure -2 is the copy of the first information given to the police by the same complainant -informant. This shows that on 5.2.2009 Mohd. Salim had informed the police that his son -in -law informed him on telephone that Smt. Nasreen Bano died due to stove -burst. When he reached sasural of his daughter, he found the dead body lying there. He assessed that kerosene oil was poured on his daughter and she was burnt alive. However, in that information there was no allegation regarding demand of dowry. The police entered this information in the GD. and closed the chapter by saying that no such offence was committed. It is not clear whether any investigation or inquiry was made by the police. Subsequently, the complainant -informant gave a detail written report to the police about the death of his daughter on which the case was registered and investigation is pending. In the first report referred to above, suicide was suspected. It may be pointed out here that the information dated 5.2.2009 was given by the complainant -informant solely on the basis of the telephonic message given by his son -in -law. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no case could be registered by the police on the second FIR. He has cited the case of II Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001 (43) ACC 345 (SC); Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others, 2004 (6) SCC 528 and Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab, 2005(2) Crl. Court Cases 445 and has contended that the entire investigation is illegal and second FIR is not maintainable. But we see no force in this contention because on the first information given to the police only G.D. entry was made by the police and no regular investigation was made. What inquiry was made by the police is neither known to the prosecution nor defence. In the case of Upkar Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has quoted the case of Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and others, 2002 (1) SCC 714, in which it was observed that when there were rival versions in respect of the same episode they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them. In the case of Ram Singh Babaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, 1994 (2) SCC 685 subsequently followed in the case of State of U.P. v. P. Amadhu, 1984 SCC (Cri) 598; Uppari Venkatswamy v. Public Prosecutor, 1996 (7) SCC 232 and previous views in the case of Tapendra v. state of Punjab, 1970 (2) SCC 113; Somabai v. State of Gujarat, 1975 (4) SCC 257 and Dhananjay Chaterji v. State of West Bengal, 1994 (2) SCC 720, detailed views regarding subsequent FIRs have been given. This is a matter of fact and requires evidence, under what circumstances the factum of demand of dowry could not be mentioned by the complainant -informant in the first report, but that was elaborated in the second report. Moreover, as we have discussed earlier no regular investigation was made by the police on the basis of the previous report. In the second report it was also mentioned by the complainant -informant that even after post -mortem examination the police was not registering the case. This also show some mischief on the part of the police in the first report. It is not clear from the record that when the police closed the matter on the first report.;