Second FIR Permissible For Same Incident With Different Version Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second FIR for the same incident is permissible where there is a different version of evidence and discovery is made on the factual foundation. A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed this while relying upon the Top Court's judgment in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab 2008. In the Nirmal Singh case (supra), referring to...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a second FIR for the same incident is permissible where there is a different version of evidence and discovery is made on the factual foundation.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed this while relying upon the Top Court's judgment in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab 2008. In the Nirmal Singh case (supra), referring to an earlier decision in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn) 1979, the Supreme Court had opined that the second FIR would be maintainable where new discovery is made on factual foundations about a larger conspiracy.
The single judge also added that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused regarding the same case; however, when there are rival versions of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs, and the same investigating agency can carry on investigation under both of them.
The Court also factored into account the view of the Apex Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2012, wherein it was reiterated that a second FIR in respect of the same offence or incident forming part of the same transaction as contained in the first FIR is not permissible, but where the offence does not fall within the ambit of the first FIR, the second FIR would be permissible.
The case in brief
The single judge was essentially dealing with a plea moved by one Sangeeta Mishra, who had moved the HC challenging an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mathura rejecting her application under Section 156(3) CrPC, requesting to lodge an FIR against the killers of her husband.
The CJM Court rejected her plea on the ground that an FIR for the murder of her husband had already been registered in 2020 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, in which the applicant (lady) was found guilty and was sent to jail.
In the order, it was reasoned that once for the murder of the applicant's husband, an FIR had been registered, and a charge sheet had been submitted against her; the contents in the application moved by her appeared to be suspicious, not deposing confidence, so the same could not be entertained.
A revision plea was filed against the aforesaid order, which was also rejected, and hence, the applicant moved the HC.
Considering the facts of the case, wherein an application under Section 156(3) CrPC has been moved by the wife of the deceased, narrating certain facts to find out the real culprits involved in her husband's murder, the Court opined that the application moved by her should have been entertained in view of the settled position of law as second FIR is maintainable where, there is a different version and also new discovery is made on factual foundation.
In view of this, the Court set aside the order of the Court of CJM and remanded the matter back to the Court concerned to decide the application moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) CrPC afresh, in view of the settled position of law.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Amitabh Tripathi,Saroj Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party: AGA Rizwan Ahmad
Case title – Sangeeta Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Case citation: