Cross FIRs Permissible In Case Of Two Different Versions Of Parties With Regard To Same Occurrence: JKL High Court

The observations were made by Justice Rajnesh Oswal while hearing a plea challenging an order passed by Judicial Magistrate Kishtwar observing that there cannot be two FIRs for the same cause/occurrence except counter FIRs and the grievance of the petitioner by no stretch of imagination is justified as the FIR is already in place and investigation is going on.

The petitioner had filed an application under section 156(3) CrPC for registration of FIR under sections 323, 341, 420, 409, 452, 506 and 109 IPC read with section 3/25 Arms Act against the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 before the Court of Duty Magistrate, Kishtwar. After recording his satisfaction that the complaint reveals the commission of cognizable offences, the Magistrate forwarded the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to SHO, Kishtwar to register the FIR under relevant provisions of law.

Non compliance on part of concerned SHO constrained the petitioner to file an application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the SHO Police Station, Kishtwar.

The Magistrate while issuing notice to the respondent SHO as a response to which a status report came to be filed by him stating that one FIR stands already registered prior to the filing of the complaint by the petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in the said FIR, the son of the petitioner-complainant was named as an accused.

In view of this fact the Magistrate dropped the contempt proceedings with the observations that there cannot be two FIRs for the same cause/occurrence except counter FIRs and the grievance of the petitioner by no stretch of imagination is justified as the FIR is already in place and investigation is going on. It was this order which was being impugned before the bench.

Challenging the order the petitioner submitted that the Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the allegations levelled in the complaint and the FIR are entirely different.

Petitioner further submitted that once the Magistrate had ordered the registration of FIR after recording its satisfaction with regard to the commission of cognizable offences, then the course adopted by the learned Magistrate by observing that with regard to the same occurrence, two FIRs are not permissible, is not in accordance with law particularly when the allegations levelled by the petitioner were different.

After hearing the contentions the court noted that in the instant case, record reveals that

pursuant to the complaint filed by respondent No. 5, FIR bearing No. 11/2021 for commission of offences under sections 447, 147 and 323 IPC has been registered against the five accused including the son and wife of the petitioner after they allegedly and illegally trespassed in the land of respondent No. 5 and assaulted him as well as his wife and the time of occurrence of the incident had been shown as 0830 hours.

Court also noted that on the contrary, in the complaint filed by the petitioner it has been alleged that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 10.01.2021 at 6.00 a.m. armed with sharp edged weapons i.e. axe forcefully trespassed into the land of the petitioner and started cutting trees and binding wire fence on the disputed land. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 started shouting by using filthy and unparliamentary language and caught hold of his son and started beating him mercilessly, the petitioner-complaint had stated in his complaint.

There may be one version of the complainant and the other by the accused and in such type of situation, the registration of cross FIR is permissible, the court said, adding that the course adopted by the Magistrate while dropping the contempt proceedings with the observation that FIR is already in place and investigation is going on, is not correct.

"It cannot be said that in the instant case, the registration of FIR on the application of the petitioner would amount to registration of second FIR regarding same offence. Rather this Court is of the considered view that the same would be a cross FIR and the registration of the same, is not impermissible under law", the bench underscored.

Accordingly, the bench set aside the observations made by the Magistrate in his order directed SHO Kishtwar to register an FIR under relevant provisions of law against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

Coram: Justice Rajesh Oswal

Click Here To Read/Download The Order