# Jhabbu Lal and others v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 626 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2008-06-24 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.14300 of 2008 - **Bench:** R.K. Rastogi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jhabbu-lal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41053 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008 8. The Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD24.06.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.14300 of 2008 Jhabbu Lal and others ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Ramashanker Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-S-482-two first information reports-two different charge sheet against same accused persons-held-not justified-second FIR as well as the charge sheet quashed with direction to the Magistrate to consider whether any fracture caused to the mother of complainant. Held: Para 4 Therefore, the second First Information Report, which had been registered as Case Crime No. 05 of 2006 is quashed and the charge sheet submitted on the basis of that First Information Report is also quashed. However, taking into consideration that there are allegations in the First Information Report that there was fracture on the head of the mother of the complainant, the Magistrate, at the stage of framing the charges shall consider this aspect of the case as to whether the mother of the complainant had received a fracture on her head or not, and if there was any fracture, what offence is prima facie made out against the accused in respect of that fracture on the head, and then he shall proceed with the case registered as Case No.2766 of 2005 on the basis of Case Crime No. 13 of 2005. (Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi, J.) 1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned charge sheet No.14/2007 in Case Crime No.C-5/2006 of P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri, under Sections 323,504,506,308 I.P.C. pending before 3rd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Mainpuri. 2. Since the point involved in this case is legal one, I have, with the consent of the parties, heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and I am deciding it without calling for any counter affidavit. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are that the complainant-opposite party no. 2 moved an application against the accused-applicants under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mainpuri leveling allegations under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C. against the accusedapplicants in respect of an incident which had allegedly taken place on 6.4.2005 at 6.00 P.M. with the mother of the applicant. This application was moved on 23.4.2005 and on this application, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 3.5.2005 directing the police to register the First Information Report and investigate the same. Then Case Crime No.13 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 308 I.P.C. was registered at the police station on 2.10.2005 and charge 2 All] Jhabbu Lal and others V. State of U.P. and another 627 sheet No.113/2005 was submitted against all the accused-applicants under Sections 32, 504, 506 I.P.C. on 29.10.2005. It appears that subsequently a copy of the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. along with a carbon copy of the aforesaid order dated 3.5.2005 was again sent to the police station Dannahar for compliance and on the basis of that order again a First Information Report was registered in respect of the same incident as Case Crime No.C-5/2006. The police again investigated the case, though the investigation was conducted this time by another investigating Officer; and this time the charge sheet was submitted against all the accused under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C. The number of this charge sheet is 14/2007. It has been submitted that on this charge sheet also, the Magistrate took cognizance and passed an order in respect of the accused. So, now the position is that in respect of one and same incident which had allegedly taken place on 6.4.2005 between the same parties two F.I.Rs. were registered and two charge sheets have been filed on the basis of those two First Information Reports and two separate cases bearing no.2766 of 2005 and 325 of 2007 have been registered in the same Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that when the earlier First Information Report had already been registered against the accused and a charge sheet had also been submitted after investigation, there was no justification for registration of the second First Information Report and reinvestigation. This contention is correct. There cannot be two First Information Reports for the same offence against the same persons. Therefore, the second First Information Report, which had been registered as Case Crime No. 05 of 2006 is quashed and the charge sheet submitted on the basis of that First Information Report is also quashed. However, taking into consideration that there are allegations in the First Information Report that there was fracture on the head of the mother of the complainant, the Magistrate, at the stage of framing the charges shall consider this aspect of the case as to whether the mother of the complainant had received a fracture on her head or not, and if there was any fracture, what offence is prima facie made out against the accused in respect of that fracture on the head, and then he shall proceed with the case registered as Case No.2766 of 2005 on the basis of Case Crime No. 13 of 2005. 5. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with the above observations. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.05.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J. THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J. Special appeal No.682 of 2008 Smt. Sangeeta Devi ...Appellant Versus The State of U.P. & others...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri R.C. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.N. Rai S.C. Uttar Pradesh Punchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan & Member)