SABINA,J. - (1.) Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the First Information Report No. 506/2014 registered at Police Station Shahpura, Jaipur (Rural), for offences under Sections 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 got married to Gayatri @ Priyanka on 01.05.2014. Gayatri @ Prlyanka has committed suicide on 30.07.2014 by consuming poison at Junagadh (State of Gujarat). FIR No. 90/2014 (Annexure-1) was registered against the petitioners under Section 498-A, 306, 304-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 01.09.2014 at Police Station Junagadh. Petitioners are facing trial in the said case as challan has been presented in the Court. After investigation of the case, FIR Annexure-1 was got registered by respondent No. 2. However, respondent No, 2 has lodged another FIR Annexure-3 against the petitioners at Police Station Shahpura, Jaipur Rural under Section 406 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 07.11.2014. FIR Annexure-3 was liable to be quashed as the petitioners cannot be criminally proceeded in two cases relating to same cause of action, After thorough investigation of the case, Investigating Agency had presented a negative final report qua FIR Annexure-3. However, Magistrate sent the case for further investigation on irrelevant considerations. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Smt. Narbada Devi and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2016(3) RCC (Raj.) 1273 , wherein it was held as under: "In the matter of T.T. Antony (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences which is first entered in station house diary by officer in charge of the police station can be regarded as FIR under Section 154 Cr.RC. All such subsequent information's will be covered by Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 Officer in charge of the 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 Cr.P.C., 1973 Even if after conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 the officer in charge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident he can make further investigation normally with the leave of the Court and forward the further evidence, if any collected, with further reports under Section 173(8) Cr.RC.
(3.) Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2013(6) Supreme Court Cases 384 , wherein it was held as under:- "On the plain construction of the language and scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 14 suggest that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the officer in-charge of a Police Station. This implies that there has to be the first information report about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the Incident is separate, offences are similar or different or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating authority of the police. Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the Investigating Agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The filing of report upon completion of investigation either in cancellation or alleging commission of an offence is a matter which once filed before the court of competent jurisdiction attains a kind of finality as far as police is concerned, may be in a given case, subject to the right of further investigation but wherever the investigation has been completed and a person is found to be prima facie guilty of committing an offence or otherwise, re-examination by the investigating agency on its own should not be permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same offence. If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the Police cannot be ruled out. It is with this intention in mind that such interpretation should be given to Section 154 of the Code, as it would not only further the object of law but even that of just and fair investigation. More so, in the backdrop of the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, re-investigation or de novo investigation is beyond the competence of not only the investigating agency but even that of the learned Magistrate. The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more particularly Section 167(2) of the Code. Ref. Rita Nag v. State of West Bengal, 2009(9) SCC 129 and Vijay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Ors. SLP (Cri.) No. 9185-9186 of 2009 of the same date. It has to be examined on the merits of each case whether a subsequently registered FIR is a second Fir about the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will not be appropriate for the Court to lay down one straitjacket formula uniformly applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of law and facts depending upon the merits of a given case. xxxxx The First Information Report is a very important document, besides it sets the machinery of criminal law in motion. It is a very material document on which the entire case of the prosecution is built. Upon registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code. The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to the police officer in charge of a police station, in respect of the same incident, involving one or more than one cognizable offences cannot be ruled out. Other materials and information given to or received otherwise by the investigating officer would be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The Court in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of 'samene' to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incident/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. This is the view expressed by the Court in the case of Babu Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Ors . This judgment clearly spells out the distinction between two FIRs relating to the same incident and two FIRs relating to different incident or occurrences of the same incident etc." ;