# Arvind Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1258
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7581 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50527
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226- Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 366, 120-B-Quashing of
first information report- The informant
had lodged second F.I.R. for harassing
the petitioners after 3 months of the
lodging of the previous first information
report in which final report was submitted
by
the
Investigating
Officer
in
the
investigation-
The
informant
did
not
pursue the legal remedy available to him
under law against submission of final
report in a case registered by him-He did
submit application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C
regarding the same incident before the
Magistrate concerned and got the second
F.I.R.
registered-The
second
F.I.R.
regarding the same incident is barred by
the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex
Court-The second F.I.R. was also not
maintainable on the ground that the
informant had adequate remedy under the
law against the final report submitted by
the Investigating Officer in the first F.I.R.
lodged by him.(Para 1 to 14)
The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the respondent no. 3 - Additional District
Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Bhadohi
and the appellate court order dated
31.3.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 -
Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division at
Mirzapur, are hereby quashed.

15. Let a copy of this order be
forwarded to District Magistrate, Bhadohi
for necessary actions
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1258
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7581 of 2023

Arvind Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Brajesh Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Alok Krishna Tripathi, Sri Utpal
Singh

A. Criminal Law-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226- Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 366, 120-B-Quashing of
first information report- The informant
had lodged second F.I.R. for harassing
the petitioners after 3 months of the
lodging of the previous first information
report in which final report was submitted
by
the
Investigating
Officer
in
the
investigation-
The
informant
did
not
pursue the legal remedy available to him
under law against submission of final
report in a case registered by him-He did
submit application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C
regarding the same incident before the
Magistrate concerned and got the second
F.I.R.
registered-The
second
F.I.R.
regarding the same incident is barred by
the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex
Court-The second F.I.R. was also not
maintainable on the ground that the
informant had adequate remedy under the
law against the final report submitted by
the Investigating Officer in the first F.I.R.
lodged by him.(Para 1 to 14)
The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kari Choudhary Vs Mst. Sita Devi & Ors
(2002) 1 SCC 714

2. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Ker. & ors. CRLA No.
689 of 2001, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 1522
of 2000

3. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. (1992) Suppl.
1 SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Alok
Krishan Tripathi, learned counsel for the
informant and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned
A.G.A.
appearing
for
the
Staterespondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned first information report dated
06.04.2023 registered as Case Crime No.
216 of 2023 under Sections 366, 120-B
I.P.C., Police Station- Jeanpur, District-
Azamgarh, and for a direction to the
respondents not to arrest the petitioners
pursuant to impugned first information
report.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
that
the
informant/respondent no. 4, Ram Bilas
8 All. Arvind Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1259
Rajbhar had given an application u/s 156
(3) Cr.P.C. regarding alleged incident dated
28.12.2022 at 11.30 hours on which
Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, passed an
order dated 03.04.2023 whereby first
information report against the petitioners
was lodged on 06.04.2023 as Case Crime
No. 216 of 2023 u/s 366, 120-B I.P.C.,
P.S.- Jeanpur, District- Azamgarh.

4. It has been stated in the first
information report that petitioner no. 1,
Arvind Singh, is the ex-Gram Pradhan of
village- Rasoolpur, District- Azamgarh. His
bonded labour, Ram Nayan Ram's mother,
Dulari Devi is the present Gram Pradhan of
his village. The whole work of Gram
Pradhan
is
looked
after
by
accused/petitioner no. 1, Arvind Singh. The
informant has submitted complaint to the
higher authorities against the previous
Gram Pradhan for enquiry regarding
development works carried on during the
period of aforesaid Gram Pradhan. Due to
this enmity, accused persons, Arvind
Singh, Ajeet Singh, Ram Nayan Ram, Ram
Bachan Rajbhar and Naitik, hatched
conspiracy to humiliate the informant and
cause damage to his social reputation. In
furtherance of this, accused persons on
28.12.2022 at 11.30 o'clock forcibly
kidnapped informant's daughter, Annu
from Banaura Road and carried her in
Scorpio vehicle while she was returning
home after appearing in B.Sc. 1st year
examination in Badrinath Degree College,
Kanjra
Dilshapur.
The
incident
was
witnessed by Jitendra Singh and Lal
Bahadur Yadav of his village. The
informant has expressed his apprehension
that the accused persons may sell or murder
his daughter after her abduction. The same
informant, Ram Bilas Rajbhar had lodged a
first information report dated 28.12.2022 at
22.02 hours on the very same day of the
incident which was registered as Case
Crime No. 764 of 2022 u/s 366 I.P.C. at
P.S.- Jeanpur, District- Azamgarh against
petitioner no. 5, Naitik.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the victim, namely,
Annu was a major aged about 18 years 6
months at the time of the incident. Her date
of birth being 02.07.2004. The petitioners
have filed High School Marksheet of the
victim which is annexed as Annexure No. 4
to the writ petition. It has also been
submitted that after lodging of the previous
first information report, the victim, Annu
Rajbhar
along
with
accused,
Naitik,
appeared before Station House Officer,
Police Station- Jeanpur, District- Azamgarh
and gave an application on 11.01.2023
admitting that the alleged incident dated
28.12.2022 took place with the free consent
of the victim, Annu Rajbhar and that they
were living together. The victim, Annu
Rajbhar, in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
before the Investigating Officer and in her
statement dated 28.01.2023 u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
which was recorded by the Magistrate
concerned has stated that she left her home
with her own sweet will and had gone with
accused, Naitik to Gujarat for performing
marriage with him.

6. After investigation, on the basis of
statements of victim u/s 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. and that of independent witness,
Sanjay Rajbhar and finding that the victim
Annu was major and had left her house on
her own sweet will and had married with
accused, Naitik, the Investigating Officer
submitted final report in Case Crime No.
764 of 2022 u/s 366 I.P.C. at P.S.- Jeanpur,
District- Azamgarh on 19.01.2023. The
petitioners have filed the statements u/s 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim and
independent witness, Sanjay Rajbhar and
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the final report as Annexure Nos. 6, 8, 9
and 10 to the writ petition.

7. Without disclosing the fact that
informant had lodged first information
report on 28.12.2022 regarding the same
incident in which after investigation, the
Investigating Officer had submitted final
report on 19.01.2023, submitted application
u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the incident
dated 28.12.2022 and got a F.I.R. lodged
on 06.04.2023 adding 4 other accused
persons, apart from previous co-accused,
Naitik, two first information reports cannot
be lodged for the same incident dated
28.12.2022. The informant had lodged
second
F.I.R.
dated
06.04.2023
for
harassing the petitioners after 3 months of
the
lodging
of
the
previous
first
information report in which final report
was submitted by the Investigating Officer
in the investigation.

8. It has also been submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioners that
considering the final report submitted in the
previous
first
information
report,
no
offence u/s 366, 120-B I.P.C. is made out
against the petitioners. He has also placed
reliance on the following judgements of the
Hon'ble Apex Court :-

(i) Kari Choudhary Vs. Mst.
Sita Devi and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 714

(ii) T.T. Antony Vs. State of
Kerala & Ors., Appeal (Crl.) 689 of
2001, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 1522
of 2000

9. In the first information report dated
28.12.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 764
of 2022 lodged in P.S.- Jeanpur, the informant,
Ram Bilas Rajbhar has stated that her
daughter, Annu Rajbhar aged about 18 years 6
months who was studying in B.Sc. - I in
Badrinath Degree College had gone to college
on 28.12.2022 for giving examination but she
did not return back home in the evening. The
informant had firm belief that accused, Naitik
S/o Ram Bachan, resident of village-
Rasoolpur has taken and enticed her daughter
away.

10. In the case of Kari Choudhary
(supra), the Apex Court has held that there
cannot be two F.I.R.s against the same accused
in respect of the same case. But when there are
two rival versions in respect of same episode,
they would normally take the shape of two
different F.I.R.s and investigation can be
carried on under both of them by the same
investigating agency. Even that apart, the
report submitted to the court by way of the
subsequent F.I.R. need be considered as an
information submitted to the court regarding
the new discovery made by the police during
investigation that persons not named in the
first F.I.R. are the real culprits. To quash the
said proceedings merely on the ground that
final report had been laid in the first F.I.R. is,
to say the least, too technical. Even otherwise,
the investigating agency is not precluded from
further investigation in respect of an offence in
spite of forwarding a report under sub-section
(2) of Section 173 on a previous occasion.
This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code.

11. In the case of T.T. Antony
(supra), the Apex Court has discussed the
law relating to lodging of F.I.R. and
registration of the F.I.R. and the subsequent
steps to be taken by the investigating
agency in pursuance thereof as well as the
status of second F.I.R. lodged regarding the
same incident as follows :-

"Inasmuch
as
the
germane
question relates to registration of an
F.I.R., we may usefully refer to Section
8 All. Arvind Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1261
154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) which reads as under :
"154. Information in cognizable cases. -

(1) Every information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing
by him or under his direction, and be read
over to the informant;

and every such information,
whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the
person giving it, and the substance thereof
shall be entered in a book to be kept by
such officer in such form as the State
Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as
recorded under sub-section (1) shall be
given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a
refusal on the part of an officer in charge
of
a
police
station
to
record
the
information referred to in sub-

section
(1)
may
send
the
substance of such information, in writing
and by post, to the Superintendent of
Police concerned who, if satisfied that
such
information
discloses
the
commission of a cognizable offence, shall
either investigate the case himself or
direct an investigation to be made by any
police officer subordinate to him, in the
manner provided by this Code, and such
officer shall have all the powers of an
officer in charge of the police station in
relation to that offence.

Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of
Cr.P.C. contains four mandates to an
officer in-charge of a police station. The
first
enjoins
that
every
information
relating to commission of a cognizable
offence if given orally shall be reduced to
writing and the second directs that it be
read over to the informant; the third
requires that every such information
whether given in writing or reduced to
writing shall be signed by the informant
and the fourth is that the substance of
such information shall be entered in the
station house diary. It will be apt to note
here a further directive contained in subsection (1) of Section 157 of Cr.P.C.
which provides that immediately on
receipt of the information the officer in
charge of the Police Station shall send a
report of every cognizable offence to a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of the offence and then proceed to
investigate or depute his subordinate
officer to investigate the facts and
circumstances of the case. Sub-section (2)
entitles the informant to receive a copy of
the information, as recorded under subsection (1), free of cost. Sub- section (3)
says that in the event of an officer in
charge of a police station refusing to
record the information as postulated
under sub- section (1), a person aggrieved
thereby may send the substance of such
information in writing and by post to the
Superintendent of Police concerned who
is given an option either to investigate the
case himself or direct the investigation to
be made by a police officer subordinate to
him, in the manner provided by Cr.P.C., if
he is satisfied that the information
discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence. The police officer to whom
investigation
is
entrusted
by
the
Superintendent of Police has all the
powers of an officer in charge of the
police station in relation to that offence.
An information given under sub-section
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is commonly
known as First Information Report
(F.I.R.) though this term is not used in the
Code. It is a very important document.
And as its nick name suggests it is the
earliest and the first information of a
cognizable offence recorded by an officer
in charge of a police station. It sets the
criminal law into motion and marks the
commencement of the investigation which
ends up with the formation of opinion
under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as
the case may be, and forwarding of a
police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
It is quite possible and it happens not
infrequently that more informations than
one are given to a police officer in charge
of a police station in respect of the same
incident involving one or more than one
cognizable offences. In such a case he
need not enter every one of them in the
station house diary and this is implied
in Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Apart from a
vague information by a phone call or a
cryptic telegram, the information first
entered in the station house diary, kept for
this purpose, by a police officer in charge
of a police station is the First Information
Report - F.I.R. postulated by Section
154 of Cr.P.C. All other informations
made orally or in writing after the
commencement of the investigation into
the cognizable offence disclosed from the
facts mentioned in the First Information
Report and entered in the station house
diary by the police officer or such other
cognizable offences as may come to his
notice during the investigation, will be
statements falling under Section 162 of
Cr.P.C. No such information/statement
can properly be treated as an F.I.R. and
entered in the station house diary again,
as it would in effect be a second FIR and
the same cannot be in conformity with the
scheme of the Cr.P.C. Take a case where
an FIR mentions cognizable offence
under Section 307 or 326 I.P.C. and the
investigating agency learns during the
investigation
or
receives
a
fresh
information that the victim died, no fresh
FIR under Section 302 I.P.C. need be
registered which will be irregular; in such
a case alteration of the provision of law in
the first FIR is the proper course to adopt.
Let us consider a different situation in
which H having killed W, his wife,
informs the police that she is killed by an
unknown person or knowing that W is
killed by his mother or sister, H owns up
the responsibility and during investigation
the truth is detected; it does not require
filing of fresh FIR against H - the real
offender-who can be arraigned in the
report under Section 173(2) or 173(8)
of Cr.P.C., as the case may be. It is of
course permissible for the investigating
officer to send up a report to the
concerned Magistrate even earlier that
investigation is being directed against the
person suspected to be the accused. The
scheme of the Cr.P.C. is that an officer in
charge of a Police Station has to
commence
investigation
as
provided
in Section 156 or 157 of Cr.P.C. on the
basis of entry of the First Information
Report, on coming to know of the
commission of a cognizable offence. On
completion of investigation and on the
basis of evidence collected he has to form
opinion
under Section
169 or
170
of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and
forward his report to the concerned
Magistrate
under Section
173(2) of
Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a
report if he comes into possession of
further information or material, he need
not register a fresh FIR, he is empowered
to make further investigation, normally
with the leave of the court, and where
during further investigation he collects
8 All. Arvind Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1263
further evidence, oral or documentary, he
is obliged to forward the same with one or
more further reports; this is the import of
sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.
From the above discussion it follows that
under the scheme of the provisions
of Sections
154, 155, 156,157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 o
f Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first
information in regard to the commission
of a cognizable offence satisfies the
requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus
there can be no second F.I.R. and
consequently there can be no fresh
investigation
on
receipt
of
every
subsequent information in respect of the
same cognizable offence or the same
occurrence or incident giving rise to one
or more cognizable offences. On receipt of
information about a cognizable offence or
an incident giving rise to a cognizable
offence or offences and on entering the
F.I.R. in the station house diary, the
officer in charge of a 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 of the Cr.P.C."

12. Considering the facts of the present
case in the light of the law propounded by the
Apex Court in T.T. Antony (supra), we find
that the informant, Ram Bilas Rajbhar had
got first information report dated 28.12.2022
registered at 22.02 hours in P.S.- Jeanpur as
Case Crime No. 764 of 2022 u/s 366 I.P.C.
regarding the abduction of his daughter,
Annu against Naitik. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer did not find any
evidence regarding commission of offence
against accused, Naitik and submitted final
report. The informant did not pursue the legal
remedy available to him under law against
submission of final report in a case registered
by him. He did submit application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. on 21.03.2023 regarding the same
incident before the Magistrate concerned and
got the second F.I.R. registered as Case
Crime No. 216 of 2023 under Sections 366,
120-B I.P.C. in Police Station- Jeanpur, on
06.04.2023 against the petitioners who
included the accused of the previous F.I.R,
Naitik and 4 other accused persons. The
second F.I.R. regarding the occurrence was
not maintainable under the law. The second
F.I.R. regarding the same incident is barred
by the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. The second F.I.R. was also not
maintainable on the ground that the informant
had adequate remedy under the law against
the final report submitted by the Investigating
Officer in the first F.I.R. lodged by him. In
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.,
(1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court
has held as sixth ground for quashing of the
F.I.R. as :

(6) Where there is an express
legal bare engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted)
to
the
institution
and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

13.

Applying
the
aforesaid
principles propounded by the Apex Court
in Bhajan Lal (supra), the second F.I.R.
lodged by the informant, Ram Bilas
Rajbhar as Case Crime No. 216 of 2023
under Sections 366, 120-B I.P.C., Police
Station- Jeanpur, District- Azamgarh, is
not maintainable and is liable to be
quashed.
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. In view of the above, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The First
Information
Report
dated
06.04.2023
registered as Case Crime No. 216 of 2023,
under Section 366, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.-
Jeanpur, District- Azamgarh, as well as all
consequential
proceedings
are
hereby
quashed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1264
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7644 of 2023

Smt. Malti Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Udayveer Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Anil Kumar

A.
Criminal
Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Section 366-Quashing of FIR-
the petitioners no. 1 & 2 are major and
they have married on their sweet willmere finding that a woman was abducted
is not enough, it must further be proved
that the accused abducted the woman
with
the
intent
that
she
may
be
compelled, or knowing it to be likely that
she will be compelled to marry any person
or in order that she may be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it
to be likely that she will be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse-Unless the
prosecution proves that the abduction is
for the purposes mentioned in Section 366
IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused
guilty and punish him under Section 366
IPC. (Para 1 to 10)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Juli Kumari & anr. Vs St. of UP & ors.
CMWP No. 17046 of 2022

2. Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani Vs St. of Mah. &
(2018) AIR SC 2099

3. Gabbu Vs St. of M.P. (2006) AIR SC 2461

4. Shahjahan Vs St. (2011) Cr.L.J. 573

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

Heard Sri Udayveer Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar,
learned counsel for the informant and Sri
Rajesh Kumar Sacchan, learned State Law
Officer appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned First Information Report dated
04.05.2023 registered as Case Crime No.
214 of 2023, under Section 366 I.P.C.,
P.S.- Rath, District- Hamirpur, and for a
direction to the respondents not to arrest the
petitioners in pursuance of impugned First
Information Report.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that as per Junior High
School Marksheet, the date of birth of
petitioner no. 1, Smt. Malti Devi is
10.07.2001 and as per the Aadhar card and
PAN Card, the date of birth of petitioner
no. 2, Rajkumar is 01.01.1992 and as such,
the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are major and
they have married on their sweet will,
therefore, no offence has been committed.
By drawing attention to Annexure-4 to the
petition, it is submitted that online