Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash 'Riots' FIR Lodged By Sitting MLA Against Bahraich Violence Victim's Relative, BJYM City Chief
Sparsh Upadhyay
5 Nov 2024 9:00 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash an FIR, lodged on the complaint of Mahasi MLA Sureshwar Singh against a relative of the Bahraich violence victim Ram Gopal Mishra, the BJYM City Chief, and others.
For the uninitiated, on October 13, the final day of Durga Puja celebrations, communal violence broke out in the Maharajganj/Mehsi area of District Bahraich after some local members of a particular community objected to the playing of loud music. The altercation further resulted in the death of a 22-year-old man named Ram Gopal Mishra.
The FIR, which contains accusations that are unrelated to the communal violence, was lodged on October 18 against seven named persons under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for rioting and attempting to murder.
The FIR in question pertains to the incident involving the accused and others staging a protest with the body of the Bahraich Violence Victim (Mishra), obstructing the district administration and police from performing their duties, including the autopsy. The FIR also alleges that Gunshots were also fired into the air during the protest.
Challenging the FIR in question, two petitions were moved before the HC [one by the cousin brother-in-law of Victim-Mishra (Pundrik Kumar Pandey) and the second by the Nagar Adhyaksh of the Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha (Arpit Srivastava and two others)].
In both petitions, it was argued that the FIR, lodged at the instance of the sitting BJP MLA, was aimed at settling personal grudges against the petitioners.
Importantly, it was contended that the impugned FIR [Case Crime No.0347 of 2024] is the second FIR in relation to the same incident as an FIR under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 190, 131, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 326(g), 326(f), 3(5), 121(1) of the BNS 2023 had already been lodged on October 15 [FIR No.0346 of 2024], wherein similar facts were alleged.
Hence, it was prayed that the impugned FIR, being a second FIR, be quashed. Advocate Abhishek Srivastava, arguing for the petitioners, heavily relied upon the Top Court's judgment in the case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others 2010.
Hearing both pleas together, a bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, at the outset, noted that a second FIR will be impermissible in law if an offence forming part of it arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR.
In this regard, the Division bench referred to the Top Court's judgment in the cases of TT Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors 2001, Upkar Singh vs Ved Prakash & Ors 2004, Babubhai (Supra) as well as judgment rendered in Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010), and C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamilnadu 2010.
Now, when the Court examined the facts of the case, it noted that the initial/First FIR [FIR No.0346 of 2024] was lodged on October 15 by the police official pertaining to a piece of general information regarding the incident which happened during the immersion procession of Devi Durga idols where one person was shot as a result whereof crowd got angry and destroyed the shops of the other community through stone-pelting and setting them on fire.
On the other hand, the Court noted that the impugned FIR was lodged on October 18 by the sitting MLA concerning the alleged incident where the named accused, along with others were holding Dharna Pradarshan with the body of the deceased-victim (Mishra) and not letting the District Administration and the Police Authorities carry out their public duties.
Thus, finding that the two FIRs pertained to different matters, the Court observed that the impugned FIR was not a part of the same transaction for which an earlier FIR was lodged and that it was related to a subsequent development.
The Court further noted that even the Section of the BNS invoked in the same are not identical and do not relate to the same incident or the same accused.
In view of this, finding no reasonable ground to show interference, the petitions were dismissed.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioners: Abhishek Srivastava
Counsel for Respondents: AGA, Manoj Kumar Singh (for the informant/MLA)
Case title - Pundrik Kumar Pandey Alias Pundrik Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others, along with a connected matter
Case citation:
