- (1.) This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in respect of two criminal cases :- (i) Minakhan P.S. Case No. 69 dt. 16.10.1999, G.R. No. 176 of 1999, under Sections 147/148/353/325/326/307 I.P.C. and 25(1)(a)/27 Arms Act and Section 9(B) I.E. Act. (ii) Minakhan P.S. Case No. 70 dt. 16.10.99, G.R. No. 1075 of 1999 under Sections 147/148/149/325/326/307/506 and adding Section 302 I.P.C. & 25(1)(a)/27 Arms Act and Section 9(B) I.E. Act. This revisional application pertains to recording of two F.I.Rs. in two separate cases as mentioned above at two different times in respect of one and identical incident that took place between 9.30 hours to 10.05 hours on 16.10.99 as alleged by the petitioner, Niamat Gazi, who is an accused in the aforesaid cases :
(2.) Brief facts :- S.I. of Police, Balai Ch. Ghosh of Minakhan P.S. arrived at Babur Ghat at about 10.00 hours on an information having been received to see that about 300/400 supporters of T.M.C. taking out a victory procession were being resisted by about 100 supporters of C.P.I.(M) and prepared to attack each other. S.I., Balai Ch. Ghosh intercepted, wanted both parties to disperse, but to no effect. The warring groups hurled brick bats at each other and also at the police and also started firing at police. S.I., Balai Ch. Ghosh and another constable sustained injuries on their persons. The Police lathi-charged the mob and dispersed them from the place. Twenty-four persons were arrested on the spot and they were brought to Minakhan P.S. The entire episode took place from 10.00 hours to 10.45 hours. Thereafter, S.I., Balai Ch. Ghosh wrote the written complaint on the incident whereupon the said Minakhan P.S. Case No. 69 dt. 16.10.99 was drawn and investigation taken up by one S.I., Subodh Chakraborty.
(3.) At about 15.35 hours another written complaint was filed to the O.C. of Minakhan P.S. by one Majed Ali Gazi giving information of the incident which according to the said complaint took place at about 9.00 A.M. at Babur Ghat and on that basis another F.I.R. was recorded against 35 persons touching upon the self-same incident, whereupon the second case that is Minakhan P.S. Case No. 70 dt. 16.10.99 was recorded and the same was endorsed to S.I., Balai Ch. Ghosh for investigation. On 17.10.99 the accused persons including the petitioner, Niamat Gazi in the said P.S. Case No. 69 dt. 16.10.99 was forwarded by the S.I., Subodh Chakraborty to the S.D.J.M., Basirhat, North 24-Parganas with forwarding report in the light of the written complaint filed by S.I., Balai Ch. Ghosh. A separate forwarding report was sent also in connection with Case No. 70 dt. 16.10.99 by another S.I. of Minakhan P.S. against the identical persons of the former F.I.R. No. 69 dt. 16.10.99 where the petitioner, Niamat Gazi also figured as an accused, though his name did not figure in the complaint or the F.I.R. It is further stated that Asoke Mondal, whose name was mentioned as having had bullet injury in Case No. 70 dt. 16.10.99. was not mentioned in Case No. 069 dt 16.10.99. S.I., Balai Ch. Ghosh after returning from the spot on 16.10.99 did not mention about such bullet injury of Asoke Mondal, who was later picked up by a different Police Officer was sent to N.R.S. Hospital and died. On such death police got the charge in Case No. 70, amended by incorporating Section 302 I.P.C. The names of those 11 persons, who were arrested by S.I., Balai Ch. Ghosh at 9.30 to 10.45 A.M. and brought to Police Station and suo motu case was recorded as Case No. 69 dt. 16.10.99 was manipulated and wrongly reported to have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. and Case No. 70 dt. 16.10.99, a subsequently created and manufactured F.I.R. Case No. 70 of the same date, although recorded at 15.35 hours. There may be a number of information at the police station touching one and the identical matter disclosing commission of cognizable case but all the information cannot be treated as just information report and recording of several cases based on them. First Information Report is the one which was received first in point of time and in case is to be recorded for investigation on the said F.I.R. only, other cases on subsequent information are illegal and cannot be acted upon and without jurisdiction. It is further alleged by the petitioner that false allegations have been made against the accused persons as shown in Case No. 70. According to the petitioner the second F.I.R. of Case No. 70 dt 16.10.99 is manifestly attended with malicious intention to wreak vengeance on the accused persons by their rival party and the second Case No. 70 is absurd, inherently improbable and the proceedings in connection therewith shall result in an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner, therefore, prays for quashment of the said proceedings arising out of the second F.I.R. in case No. 70 dt. 16.10.99.;